User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch120

Change in scenery?

Given our recent discussions on WP:BLP, was wondering if you wanted to take a look at this article? The whole situation is strange and unfortunate, but it could be a nice change in scenery for you? WMrapids (talk) 02:29, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

That's among the most embarrassing BLPs I've read since I can remember, and I wouldn't be at all surprised to see it actually run at DYK, where stuff like that is encouraged. Marginal sources throughout, and the the lead doesn't even make sense ... what nine-year-old is in charge of their public entity? When writing about a child, there should be nothing but the very highest quality sources used; what a Daily Maily-style embarrassment to Wikipedia. Why would you call my attention to this; why would anyone want a "change of scenery" to engaging smut? Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Lil Tay. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:53, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Only wanted to ask for your help on the article as I was attempting to protect the image of a child's WP:BLP. You didn't need to be harsh about that... WMrapids (talk) 02:56, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I apologize for the harshness, but regret that I have no interest in editing tabloid articles. Thank you for doing what you could in defense of that poor child; one can only imagine what kind of parents have allowed things to get to that state with a nine-year-old. My "harsh" response was borne of being woken in the middle of the night by the dog, and being repulsed by what I read there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:38, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

WikiLeaks edit

As an act of good faith, I wanted to inform you about this edit. After reviewing WP:BLP, I believe that I presented the information in a neutral manner while sticking to the sources, though I wanted to notify you to see if you had any concerns. Thanks! WMrapids (talk) 05:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

WMrapids, thanks for the note, but if that is an act of good faith, then you are mightily confused about both WP:BLP and WP:RS, as I explained here. As this has already been raised at ANI, where I suggested you should not be editing BLPs, I hope this won't happen again. You *must* take BLP policy seriously, and you cannot impugn a living person with statements coming from Venezuelan state media, which has been shown over and over and over again at WP:RSN to not be reliable, much less the quality required to make a negative statement about a living person. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:59, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

This is why I notified you! My intention was to place something sourced from the Venezuelan government/official in response and not just a nebulous "state media" opinion, so I hope you can recognize my effort at least. WMrapids (talk) 06:08, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

WMrapids I may be repeating myself from months ago, but you need to slow down. The minute you add something to Wikipedia about a living person, it is in history until or unless an admin WP:OVERSIGHTs the edit. You must be more careful about editing BLPs. I am willing to accept you did this in good faith, but you don't have a good grasp of BLP policy yet, so PLEASE suggest your edits on talk before installing them. Do you understand that lying is policy for Venezuelan state media? Have you read the sources explaining the censorship, distortion, outright fabrications, framing of people to force them into exile, etc? You have just installed another edit using a government-sourced Wordpress to refute four secondary sources. This cannot continue; please stop editing Venezuelan BLPs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:14, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

The prize is government-operated, so this is directly from the organization itself. The source was also the only one that provided the years mentioning Bocaranda's participation. Sources often misattribute awards, especially if they were presented decades ago and there is little independent documentation specifying the details. If you could find additional information, it would be greatly appreciated, but this is the best that I have found so far.--WMrapids (talk) 06:36, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

It is a WordPress; not common for Venezuelan government sources. And the dates and titles you give aren't what I see in the WordPress, even if that source could be used. Please discuss on article talk. You are still not digesting that in Venezuela, the government controls all information, and archives at what once were real newspapers are gone. Rewriting history is the name of the game. You can't use a WordPress from a Bolivarian Government person to refute four independent sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

It's August

Can we please start a FAR for Minneapolis this week? We've worked on it for three years, and I would like to wrap this up. I am home now with my books. I can't explain the absence of the other Minnesota editors. (Elkman is overdue but busy at work.)

• Added to the parks section due to a visitor's comment and a new source.
• Enhanced the Guthrie Theater, and wonder about your comment, "I've spent my life in theatre". In what capacity?

Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:00, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

SusanLesch I will try to launch the FAR when I have a free moment, but I'm not in a mood to want to face the endless endless seen before; I'll need to review talk to see if it has stopped yet. I think generally all of the good Minnesota editors, who build the FA suite 15 years ago, have pretty much moved on. I don't have an interest in working on the Guthrie article ... Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Sandy, what I was trying to tell you is that the Guthrie deserved more than the sentence we had. Now it's a para with an image.

To your other point, I am certain that the stress has cost me years of my life (anything prolonged is bound to). Sadly, the net effect is about zilch (amounting to zero positive contribution). On the bright side, that sockpuppet is blocked. Everything is quiet now, and I hope neither one surfaces at FAR. Best wishes, SusanLesch (talk) 13:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't know how you kept going through that; at least I only had to peek in occasionally. I am (hopefully) nearing the end of dealing with some good stuff that kept me insanely busy for two months, and should be able to get to this before the week ends. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:10, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

You are needed...

You know Sandy, if you were to apply for the admin bit would really invigorate the content creators into applying for admin positions. It would also pull in line the admin corps, who would really value your experience, comments and direction. I am just coming back here to harass you :) More to say hi and pass on love and good wishes (and to check if you might change your mind still on the bit). Lourdes 08:31, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

You know, how much admin work do the content creator types actually do, on average? I am an admin but I only sporadically use admin tools lately. People's time is finite and I wouldn't surprise me if there is a tradeoff between content-work time and admin time. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:34, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I relinquished my admin tools for exactly that reason. They are not needed for content creation and you find yourself caught up with tiresome admin work that life is too short to bother with. Graham Beards (talk) 09:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I think where we most need help is with new page patrolling; if we could stop some of the bad editing where it starts, we might need a lot less admins. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Hola, Lourdes! Thanks for dropping by; I was noticing just today how much backlog there is everywhere I look, and that a lot of basic stuff is going unattended. But I've also seen the same in areas of content work and assessment. It seems there's trouble everywhere. Jo-Jo and Graham may have a point about the trade-off, but I counter that with, even if an admin uses the tools only sporadically, that is still useful and needed help. In my case, I just don't have enough time anymore anywhere because of IRL circumstances for either! I made a commitment a few years ago to re-invigorating FAC, writing User:SandyGeorgia/Achieving excellence through featured content, getting WP:URFA/2020 going, and trying to reinvigorate pre-FAC peer review, but I found that even with all that, medical content could not get reviewed at FAC, so that was discouraging. My own work goes in spurts, depending on how kind each day is to me, and I have more and more days where I have to stick to the no-brainer stuff; this means, for example, reviewing at FAC and FAR has gotten harder and harder for me, because that requires real focus and a sustained time commitment. I don't see the constraints on my time lessening any time soon, but I sure like hearing from you :). Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

User:SandyGeorgia/MMStargets

Hi Sandy, just to inform you I've removed my account from the above page, and please note I block bot mass messages from my talk page with {{nobots}}. Although I copy-edited Minneapolis, I'm not an FA reviewer and I have no opinion of the article's current quality, or whether or not it should be a featured article. Having said that, good luck with your current FA nomination. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 22:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Baffle gab1978. That's only a one-time notification for the Minneapolis FAR; you were added per FAR instructions because you figure as one of the top contributors, but the next time I submit a FAR, the notification list is overwritten anyway :). Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:08, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

That's ok, thanks for thinking of me anyway. :) Good luck and cheers, Baffle☿gab 04:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

TPS Admins

Could someone revdel here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:30, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Done. Hog Farm _Talk 13:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Mankato Hangings

An editor has posted that the executions should be a separate article. Talk:Dakota War of 1862 I know you have a position on this. Thank youMcb133aco (talk)mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk)

TPS query: Newspapers.com

Does anyone have a subscription to newspapers.com? I'm looking to fill in and balance this section of Ruchell Cinque Magee (which started like this and came to my attention after all this), and find a better source for note a here, and anything else needed for balance. If anyone has anything, could they email it to me? Indy beetle might this be an article where you would be interested in helping provide balance and NPOV? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:27, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

You do - click here. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:29, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

oh dear ... I wonder how many times you will have to remind me :) :) Will try that now, thanks, Nikkimaria. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: My independent subscription through WMF actually "expired" or they changed the system to this, not sure. The downside is you can't clip articles through this system. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:34, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

You can, you just have to log into an account on top of that link - see explanation here. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:38, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Indy, I got to it and I'm not aware of having a subscription ... but darn, hard to navigate ... this will take forever. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:51, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Indy beetle you jumped right on that, which I parked in a temporary footnote, intending to find a real source for that. I've seen that info on several other non-RS, so that's one piece of what I'm looking for, to fill the gap in the narrative. But just looking at the first LA Times source on Nikki's search shows there's lots to be done there ... and sorting through all of that to find that piece could take some time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:14, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Magee, whatever the merits of his case, seems to mean a lot to a very small, committed, politically-mind group of people. This will make sorting the wheat from the chaf difficult. I googled his name and the results are flood with his own writings and lots of political media. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:41, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Yep ... which is why we may have to forge through scores of newspaper.com articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:43, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Will these links endure when I come back to them?

• https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/image/384840163/?terms=Ruchell%20Cinque%20Magee&match=1&clipping_id=76931661
• had to figure out that B6 was on page 30 ... how does that work ... https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/image/384841012/

• • With regards to the second point Newspapers.com (and several other online archives) has an automatic numbering system that simply counts the number of scanned pages in the newspaper edition. Thus, B6 is the 30th page in that edition. Some newspapers use regularly numerals so this is, coincidentally, accurate, while others use the A-B-C system for different sections (A# almost always being topline news, B# could be opinions and editorials, C could be sports, so you have to be careful. I always try and use the number the paper itself uses, but when its not possible, I'll go with the machine generated number because it is helpful for the purposes of verification (telling the reader to seek the 17th page or whatever.) -Indy beetle (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Indy beetle ... I was stalled at a much more basic level ... how to find the second page of content :) :) I had read three articles where I could only see the first page and didn't how to find the continuation, and I still don't know how ... I just kept upping the page number until I eventually found B6 on page 30 there ... I think I've done all I can for today, and appreciate you jumping on it. Another day, I will try to fill in the gap between the mistrial and conviction, with apparent plea bargain. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:41, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't know how to do this; can anyone help? I'm looking at https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/image/663809290/ and can't find the rest of the article in spite of scrolling through the next 10 pages at least. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:09, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

That links goes to the whole page; which article are you wanting? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:13, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that article is necessarily going to be useful; I'm just frustrated that I can't figure out how to use newspapers.com. For me, that link goes to page 1, which says the article continues on page 3, column 4, but I can't find the continuation anywhere. Maybe it's iPad ... will go to real computer to check. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:16, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Here. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:19, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

OK, so I see that, but I don't know how you got there. When I scroll forward, I never get that page 3 ... it skips from page 2 to page 4 ... this is so frustrating. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:22, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Real computer, can't find it still. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:19, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

It looks like there were multiple editions published that day and the pages got messed up - the problem is on their end, not yours ;-) Nikkimaria (talk) 01:25, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I think I'm underway now; thx, Nikki! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:36, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Sources

• Reich, Kenneth; Drummond, William J. (April 25, 1971). "Ruchell Magee: Profile of suspect in shootout". The Los Angeles Times. pp. 3, B6 – via Newspapers.com.
• Shaw, David; Stevens, D (August 27, 1972). "Ruchell Magee stands alone". The Los Angeles Times. pp. 27, 28, 31 – via Newspapers.com.

Nikkimaria can you help me find the rest of the pages on Shaw ? Am I citing these correctly? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:03, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Indy beetle if you are interested in working in any more content from a comprehensive news report, the Reich, Drummond Los Angeles Times April 1971 article listed above will be worth the effort. I'm pretty much out of time for today, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:21, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Nikki, I think I sorted the pages ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

RfC: La Patilla

Although still messy, La Patilla's RfC was continued at WP:RS/N (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Reliability of La Patilla, in case you were interested in participating. Best wishes! NoonIcarus (talk) 18:32, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I have been watching as able (that is, I have been crazy IRL busy and having a hard time keeping up anywhere), but the POV warrioring by a few editors in there have made me not even want to weigh in ... WP:BLUDGEONing in action is discouraging, and it takes so much effort to refute ... <sigh> ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

For archival purposes, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Archive this too; NoonIcarus already pinged you to be involved in the discussion, though you defended them and said that you were not already notified. But you've been busy and might not have noticed. Sorry, that was the red flag for me. WMrapids (talk) 02:20, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I encourage you to read the top of my talk page; pretty much everyone knows I can't or don't keep up with pings. Especially lately. But thanks for sharing. You know what's cute? Removing all posts and attempts to discuss from your own talk page, and then coming to mine to continue discussion. If you don't want to discuss, then don't. But then don't bother others either.

And if I was already notified, along with everyone else, there goes your canvassing claim anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

NoonIcarus, this is why I stopped editing Venezuelan articles. It's exhausting to have to clean up endlessly biased editing, and getting no help because most of the information is in Spanish so others don't see what is going on. Re-engaging just one tiny article makes me remember why Venezuelan editing makes me not want to be here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:23, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

My experience luckily hasn't been so negative. It's been years since I didn't see a dispute go to such lengths, and I think that the last time was during the start of the presidential crisis, along with all the international attention and controversy (although admittedly it was a time where I think I could deal better with it, and those times weren't very pleasant either). I'm sorry to know that you've felt unmotived, knowing how valuable and experienced you are as an user. With the last exchanges I hope that the situation can improve. As always, please let me know if I can lend a hand. Kind regards and happy editing <3 . --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Having to spend hours and hours and hours cleaning up POV and tendentious edits, when the rest of the Wikipedia doesn't care (partly because they can't read the sources), is what made me give up before. The cleanup I had to do on one small article in the last 48 hours is just not a productive use of time; when you look at any article in the Venezuelan suite, they've all been biased by a small core of dedicated POV warriors, the cleanup needed is endless, and I don't have the time or interest in spending my days around such poor editing which is just depressing work because it's everywhere and feels unfixable-- even more so now that it has become so hard to find sources without old reliable sources like El Universal, El National, or Venevision. All I get as a result of trying to clean up is an article which shows me as the lead editor, but is still POV and not the kind of quality I want my name attached to. It only takes two days around Venezuelan topics to remind me of why they suck my soul dry. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:01, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

PS, maybe Ealdgyth can compare this to the Polish mess, which she ultimately walked away from, and give me some insights. I've walked away for years at a time, and got brought back in to one small article via an RFC ping, and it makes me want to not edit at all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I admit that these issues have been the most frustrating for me. I've tried forgetting them, planning to fix them later and progressively, although accepting that it will take work over a long period of time, possibly years. If Ealdgyth has suggestions, regarding this, I would love to hear them. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I am contemplating whether I have the fortitude to re-engage to at least make sure living Venezuelan persons aren't maligned and defamed, but this week has shown me that even that limited engagement could cost all my free time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Needed FARs

Sandy (or any talk page stalkers) - I've got an open FAR nomination slot that I plan on using this week. Anything you know of that would be in a poor enough condition that it's a FAR priority? Otherwise I'll probably send Richard Hakluyt as I'm concerned about comprehensiveness and sourcing with that one. Hog Farm _Talk 04:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I have stopped hyperediting for the day :) :) and will have a look. Things IRL have settled down enough that I should be able to jump back into FAR as soon as I wrap up these last bits with disruptive editors :) Back in a few minutes ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Hog Farm, I'd say have a look at

• Lion 2022-12-10
• Wood Badge 2023-05-15
• Brownsea Island Scout camp 2023-05-15]

or anything planetary, and there's always Battle of Corydon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Ediacaran biota, maybe? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll look through the space ones and send either one of them or the Ediacaran biota to FAR later this week. The Scouting ones probably ought to wait until after Wikipedia:Featured article review/Baden-Powell House/archive1 clears. I own the Horwitz and Conway sources for Corydon, and still haven't given up on trying to resource that entirely, but I don't see the time or energy for that coming in the forseeable future. (And I've never heard of either of those publishers in any other context, so I'm not certain they're necessarily high-quality RS or not. I haven't taken the time to dig into either publisher's quality). Hog Farm _Talk 02:42, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Edit reverted on WP:ANI

I reverted my edit which apparently led to not only the duplicate section but a good chunk of the most recent ANI posts being wiped out. I don't know how that happened, although I suspect there was some weirdness with the VisualEditor that played a role in that, because I noticed as I was making the edit that it kept trying to take me to a different section of the page, and I was trying to avoid that. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:29, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

WaltCip, If you are going to reply under the old thread then, do you want to just remove my entire cot cob or would you rather I do that? I see we now are nowhere ... let me know ASAP so it can be fixed ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:31, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

My reply contributed nothing, and so I am not interested in keeping it. I'll remove your cot cob for you (hopefully not breaking anything this time). _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:34, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I see you've already done that. I apologize for being slow on the draw! _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:35, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I went ahead so as not to be accused of something wonky there! Sorry for the confusion, Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:37, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

The ANI thread on RudolfoMD is now sorted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:14, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Apologies

... for this. I assume I was accidentally editing an old revision... Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:36, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

The ed17 not to worry-- happens all the time :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:07, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Rollback

My apologies; my watchlist was slow to load, and the confirm-rollback-from-watchlist gadget misfired, for reasons I'm unsure of. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:55, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 happens ALL the time, no need for apology or explanation! Badly designed positioning on that gadget ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Reviewing suggested edits to American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (AFSP) article

Hi SandyGeorgia, I am looking to work with the Wikipedia community of editors to suggest objective edits to the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (AFSP) article to help address the style and tone issues highlighted for this article, as well as the issues noted around primary sources. I have a COI as AFSP is my client, so I will not be making edits directly. I was wondering if you would be willing to take a look at my suggested edits for this article, and if you agree, help with implementing the edits.

I have drafted a rework of the first lead section of the page to address the tone issues and added additional 3rd party sources. Please see the updates in more detail below. We are looking to provide updates for the majority of the page to answer the issues in full, but will break them up by section to allow for easier reviewing. This is a big ask so happy to work within your schedule.

I also left a note about this on Talk:American Foundation for Suicide Prevention! Thank you!

Suggested New Page Copy:

The American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (AFSP) is a voluntary health organization that advocates for research and education around suicide. Based in New York City, it is the largest private funder of suicide prevention research,having awarded more than $24 million in research grants. The stated goals of the foundation are to educate the public about mental health and suicide prevention, support survivors of suicide loss, fund scientific research, and advocate for public policies around mental health and suicide prevention. In addition to the national headquarters in New York City, the foundation also has a Public Policy office in Washington, D.C., as well as local chapters in all 50 states in the U.S., the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.

Through its local chapters and volunteer network, AFSP provides local communities with support services for survivors of suicide loss, educational programs for schools, workplaces and other places in the community, and awareness and fundraising events such as the Out of the Darkness Walks.

The Public Policy office uses volunteer Field Advocates to support mental health and suicide prevention legislation and policies at the federal, state and local level.

Sources

JAustenFan (talk) 19:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

JAustenFan I sincerely apologize for not responding sooner, but it looks like there is simply no chance I will be able to get to this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:45, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

update on deadbeefbot

Hi Sandy! Remember when I promised to write a bot that would handle more templates for AH folding? Well.. it has been a while. But this effort wasn't abandoned! It turned out that to handle things like GA, oldPR and failedGA I would need to do pretty much a whole rewrite of the infrastructure for parsing templates, since it now has to handle pretty much everything including the layout of fields in {{article history}}. It was quite intimidating from the start, so I left it for a while. Recently I have been at work, though, and I have some good news to share! I have almost completed an MVP by handling the AH and GA templates only. I've tested it on some samples I found, and the results were quite nice: [1][2][3] So what's left for me to do is to re-add the OTD/DYK/ITN stuff and do some supervised testing before I can deploy it. From then I can start adding support for more templates such as FailedGA, OldPR, etc, since the rewrite has made it many times easier to add new support. Well, hopefully I didn't bore you with the technical details, but I am just a bit excited to share the progress I've made. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 14:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

That is really exciting !!! Please do keep me posted ... I was sorta/kinda trying to bring more of the GAs in line by checking the various Petscans I saved earlier, but this sounds one less thing on my plate! Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

PS, only 6,319 GAs to do :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:51, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

And 544 Failed GAs SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:54, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Two quickie questions...

...FAC-related, that is. Prose-aside, do you think that Mount Berlin is long enough for a FA? Macauley Island was passed for GA by Ealdgyth but she specifically cautioned that the prose may not be at FA level. Do you know anyone interested in this sort of article who might be able to remedy this? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:49, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Jo-Jo.

Mount Berlin doesn't leave me as cold as some short FACs do; I think length it covers the territory. Have you incorporated the sources linked on talk in refideas? I'd also work in the images and ditch the gallery, and prosify the list at chronology. And see if Hog Farm has any other ideas. I also feel like after that gargantuan FAC you just endured, you've earned a short one!

Re working on the prose at Macauley Island, I've seen Amitchell125 work on geo articles at FAR in the past. Or perhaps Grahamec?

Good luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:50, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Noting though that I've already nominated Incapillo in the meantime; these are candidates for after Incapillo. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 07:43, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Eyes at prostate cancer

Hi Sandy and hopefully some page watchers. Just an update to past promises I've now wrapped up the heavy text editing at prostate cancer. If you – or anyone watching the page – have time to read it through and let me know what you think, I'd be grateful. Comments large or small are welcome.

I haven't much touched the images yet, as I tend to struggle with what makes for helpful visual display. If folks have any ideas for that, please do let me know. Otherwise I'll try to work through them this week (time to make another map for the epidemiology section, *sigh*). My hope is to bring this to FAC whenever it's ready. Thanks for all you do! Ajpolino (talk) 14:14, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Ajpolino-- awesome. I am drowning right now in terms of not being able to keep up anywhere, so I hope others will jump in, and I'll get there as soon as I can. Noting that I have a COI (husband) and think the USPSTF really missed the boat before 2018, which cost my husband a nasty time (although radiation treatment got things under control after a very miserable year). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

PS: one is six men will get prostate cancer, and yet it doesn't get nearly the attention of breast cancer, so I hope this article will get the attention it deserves. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I believe the prevalence numbers are much higher than that, with at least 80% of men in their 80s having slow-growing, localized prostate cancer. Given the expected lifespan of about 80, that suggests that at least 40% of men will get prostate cancer, and only a small fraction of them are getting diagnosed.

The breast cancer lobby has been a marketing powerhouse for several decades, but the public health difference is in the Years of potential life lost: 200K US women die from breast cancer each year, with a median age in their 60s. 150K US men die from prostate cancer each year, with a median age in their 80s. Breast cancer has about 5x YPLL than prostate cancer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:13, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Inspiration

I'm experienced in real life, but not that familiar with Wikipedia and I was frankly inspired by your analysis of a few cases, especially FinnishScottishRadish and The History Wizard...and...I thought WP was a madhouse, and here is this person offering incredibly well-thought-out, precise analyses of patterns of editing and cool-headed discussion of hot-button topics. It would take me ages even to gather the facts you're putting together when you analyze editing patterns. Please let me know if there's anything I can help with. I would love to become as good an editor as you. DenverCoder9 (talk) 19:54, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, Denvercoder9, thanks for the kind words just as I'm feeling like a fool for doing all that work, as it had already been done, which I only discovered after ScottishFinnishRadish's close -- meaning I didn't need to do so much work after all:

• January 2021 ANI
• WP:AE block
• and then this on July 22, 2023, at Ruchell Cinque Magee, which I'm working on in the section just above this one. If you're interested in helping dig through sources on that, it could be a worthwhile project, and then we've got huge cleanup needs here and here and more. Complicating matters is a considerable amount of too-close-paraphrasing throughout those articles.
  On another note, it's unfortunate, but one has to make a ridiculously strong case to get obvious POV editing sanctioned at ANI, as editors who share POV show up like clockwork to blindly support indefensible editing, and admins are loathe to get involved in what may be viewed as "content disputes", so the evidence always get lengthy.
  A great place to learn good editing skills is at WP:FAR; you can just lurk there for a long time, and weigh in as you feel qualified, and take it from there! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:09, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  You're right, that is a lot of work.

  I reorganized the lede and graham quotes in Jessie Eden, which is the most read of those articles. I'll take a look at the rest. I think the Graham Stevenson quote is OK, unless it's WP:UNDUE, because it's quoting him as a primary source?

  I've also done some work with the Stevenson links.

  DenverCoder9 (talk) 17:14, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for pitching in, Denvercoder9; you can probably see it's a depressing state of affairs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  Sure is DenverCoder9 (talk) 20:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

  The fact that it's far easier to get blocked for certain types of bias than others is a big factor why in some ways Wikipedia tends to reflect the views of its editor base. Maybe he deserved the sanction but it's disturbing that the direction of bias is a factor. I can't see an editor being blocked for equivalent pro Ukraine edits. f (t · c) buidhe 02:21, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  I'm confused ... the edits in this case are in the direction of of bias that is usually tolerated and not viewed as a blockable offense on Wikipedia, meaning the behaviors had to be really special to gain the topic ban. I might not be reading your post right ... I'm reminded of some of the really disgusting things said about the United States in various ITN discussions, which are well tolerated and accepted on Wikipedia, but if anyone said similar about other countries, they'd be blocked or banned for racism ... not sure if we are saying the same thing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:43, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  In the thread (which, to be fair, I didn't read all the way through) it started with the complaint that HistoryWizard was whitewashing authoritarian regimes.

  One cannot expect NPOV if "pro-democracy" bias is seen as more excusable than "pro-authoritarianism". And I just can't see anyone complaining on ANI about how another editor is "whitewashing democratic regimes" or a country that a lot of editors feel sympathy for. I don't think Venezuela or the Soviet Union fall into that category. (t · c) buidhe 23:35, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Polar bear peer review

Hi, would you be able to peer review the article? Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 23:13, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

American logistics in the Western Allied invasion of Germany

If you have the time, would you be able to have a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/American logistics in the Western Allied invasion of Germany/archive1? I am in dire need of reviewers. You expressed an interest in the subject in an earlier review and the article is complete Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:57, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 I will try to get over there, but my son and his wife arrive for an extended visit tomorrow and I need to see when/if I can eek out a free moment. If I forget, don't hesitate to poke me here again! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:15, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:53, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Why do medical editors love vauthors?

I'm wondering what the benefit is perceived to be, since it seems unambiguously worse than standard (ugly, less wikified, has to be manually generated,, etc.) why doesn't the standard citation generator automatically truncate after four or so authors and display etc, which is the only reason I can think of to use vauthors? (t · c) buidhe 02:16, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

1. It's what PUBMED uses, and most articles of use to us will be in Pubmed anyway; if you're pulling secondary reviews from PubMed, you're going to get vauthor format.
2. It is way cleaner and chunks up the text less-- both in editing mode and in terms of text viewed on the page.
3. The citation method was established by Diberri a gazillion years ago, when writing FAs was a core aim of WP:MED, and standardization across articles was seen as a good thing.

Why do you find it ugly ... I find strings of full names to be ugly and unnecessary clutter (and a vanity thing). Why do you say less wikified, as if the miserable horrible awful disgusting :0 :1 garbage returned by the visual editor isn't the ugliest most unmanageable thing ever? Standard citation generators don't truncate because some technical types prefer us to have a full set of some sort of data rather than ease of editing and readability.

I know this seems like a trivial matter, but I'll wager it will fill my talk page for days :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:33, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't use visual editor, I use citer.toolforge or the built in cite generator in the source editor. To reduce clutter, list defined references would be more effective and then it wouldn't matter for the purpose of clutter what style the citations were in. (t · c) buidhe 05:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't know why list-defined references have never caught on, but they haven't-- perhaps they are not intuitive for new users ? Or they create too much need for memory work (remember to delete unused from the list and add new ones to the list) which is a maintenance issue ? But they've been around forever and have still not caught on, so there must be a good reason.

On the other hand, those dreadful citations from the visual editor are seen everywhere in medical content as they come from new and student editors; at least we now have the user:Nardog/RefRenamer script to clean them up (somewhat).

I can't remember where to find the built-in cite generator; the last time this lengthy discussion was had, and we put forward examples from all possibilities, I seem to remember it just created a lot of clutter one had to edit around or didn't return useful information, or some such-- it's hard to remember now, but I know I just gave up on it to the point of forgetting where to even find it. I write every citation manually, if I can't generate it from a PMID with Diberri. It would be good to just find that old discussion in my talk archives, but I've not got the patience to go looking for it today. I need to finish up a task I started, that is turning out to be more difficult and unpleasant than need be, so I can get back to URFA and FAR where we have the luxury to work with editors who are accustomed to maintaining certain standards. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:15, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radio series)

Hi. I’m not sure if you’re the person to ask, but how long does it take for an article assessment? It’s been almost three months since The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy (radio series) lost its featured status, and that article has still not been assessed. Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 09:27, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Eyeluvbraixen; aside from WP:GA and WP:FA, assessments are usually done by WikiProjects, although any editor can do them. Many WikiProjects have fallen into decline since the days when many editors ran around doing assessments, so I've added a B-class assessment. If you're interested in taking it to a higher assessment, the next step would be a good article nomination. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Take a break

You may not be stretched thin in focus, but your hundreds of edits in just a few days are simply too much and disruptive, appearing like you are trying to overwhelm the process. Just your response to the request to prioritize our effort alone is paragraph upon paragraph about your arguments. Respectively, I must say that enough is enough. You’ve been invested in Venezuelan topics for about two decades and I respect the passion, but honestly I’m suggesting a break for you. I’ll agree not to perform any edits on the article for a few weeks if you can take a break from the article too. WMrapids (talk) 21:02, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry that me correcting the POV at Operation Gideon (2020) is creating a lot of work for you, but the article had three years to accumulate all that POV, and that takes a lot of work to correct. If you think my edits are unconstructive, you should either point those out, or alternately, the place to take that up is at ANI. I like your idea to slow down, but you are sending double messages; part of the reason I'm working so hard is because of the pressure you have exerted, multiple times, to move forward quickly towards the next Requested move discussion. And, any time I work on an article, I try to get it right-- many of my hundreds of edits are doing secretarial and maintenance work like having to clean up broken citations and faulty MOS issues like repeated names, so if people had not left all that mess in the article over so many years, I'd not have to make so many edits. I do agree with you that I over-responded to your "priority" list, because you keep adding POV while insisting we need to resolve it, and didn't appear to be listening. I came back today and tried to more succinctly lay out how I see the priorities, because I can see how rampant the POV is now that I've had a week to read the sources. Perhaps you'd agree to discuss your edits more, as I do, before adding them, as that will result in less cleanup for me, and far fewer edits to overwhelm you ? You've written a fifth of the article even though you only started editing it in May, and are responsible for a good portion of the POV, so perhaps it is you who should slow down? As you can see from the talk page, I tend to discuss major changes before making them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Please don’t blame me for your behavior; I’m making a respectful request and agreeing to slow down with you (as much as I want to resolve these issues myself). While I appreciate some of the work that you’re doing within the article, you need to limit what you place in discussions as the talk page is completely uninviting now. You suggest that I’m not listening, it’s hard to listen when you place so much noise into discussions. WMrapids (talk) 21:43, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

If you are seriously agreeing to back off on the pressure to move quickly, and accept the six-week timeline proposed for the next RM, that is welcome news for me. But it doesn't mean I will stop making my characteristic edits to clean up citations, correct redundancies, fix MOS issues, and the gazillions of article edits that I always make.

As to talk edits, I'm interested in hearing why you think talk pages should not be well used to discuss controversial edits; how would it benefit all of the other editors on talk, and article improvement, if I stopped discussing my edits on talk? I could sandbox my notes so as not to overwhelm you, but what does that do for others or the article, and what would it accomplish when I eventually have to dump those problems on to talk anyway?

Might I suggest that you are putting pressure on yourself that is not coming from me? A section on talk means something we have to eventually get to; I'm not the one causing pressure for you to get to things right away. Might that be an internal thing-- a difference in how we process? I keep lists; I list things on talk so everyone can see what I'm headed for; I start short talk sections intending for things to be archived as soon as resolved ... etc. Realizing that you might not understand that I am not operating under a tight timeline, and you may be feeling pressured to answer things quickly, is exactly why I came back and re-laid out my timeline in your priorities section, so you could see that I'm not in a hurry. I'm listening. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:51, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Keep the list on your sandbox then. Don’t clog the talk page and make it uninviting. If you keep moving this onto me, it is just more evidence that you are actually not listening. WMrapids (talk) 21:54, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, you contradict yourself. First you blame me for putting pressure on you ("part of the reason I'm working so hard is because of the pressure you have exerted" and now you say that you are not pressured, that I’m instead pressured? Come on. WMrapids (talk) 21:59, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Not hard to understand; you haven't answered whether you agree with the six weeks, but you have repeatedly returned to starting alternate discussions that circumvent the Requested move proposal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:07, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I’m saying that we take a few weeks to gather our things in our sandboxes, decide our course and make way after that. We can create sections in our sandboxes that can be linked to in the talk page so we don’t have any overwhelming collections happening on the talk page again. Six weeks is fine for me to do that, though we should ask other users what they think too. While small procedural edits are fine, large ones on topics on the talk page should be avoided. WMrapids (talk) 22:16, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

We have asked other editors on talk. And that's the plan I've been proceeding on. When you launched your priorities section, it appeared (again) that you disagreed with the timeline. Hence, you got a very long response from me, again laying out how I was working. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

If you want me to stop using an article talk page to discuss article improvements and issues, it would be useful if you gave me an explanation of how that helps the article or benefits other editors participating at the page. For example, I questioned the use of the word mercenary not only to get other opinions, but so that others would know why those changes were being made if they (indeed) were necessary. And since most of the uses were from sources that did not use that word, it did indeed turn out to be a POV issue-- most of which you introduced. Now that discussion can be archived; issue addressed. I hope this falls into the "now you know" territory, and it won't happen again.

That's how I edit; you on the other hand, barge forward with article edits with less talk discussion. That may work on an article where there are few editors or little disagreement; in a case like this, talk pages need to be used. And when you're edit warring (you must have known you were edit warring on DeVos), you should most certainly stop to discuss on talk.

But this discussion is not about my behavior; it's about our interaction, and that includes your behavior. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:06, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, I don't edit war; that's a very bad editing practice, and we could all move forward more expeditiously if you'd stop doing it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:42, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Again, personally attacking me while your behavior is being discussed is not helpful. Honestly I did not even see this discussion or receive a ping, probably due to your overwhelming amount of edits. If it’s such a big issue, you can remove the DeVos content until it’s discussed further. But again, this isn’t about me. Slow down. WMrapids (talk) 21:51, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Pointing out a fact about your behavior, with diffs, is not a personal attack. Have you read Barkeep49's essay, User:Barkeep49/Friends don't let friends get sanctioned? It's what I have referred to at ANI more than once as a "stern talking to", and something we should all do when we see another editor heading down the wrong path, whether we are friends or not. The DeVos content has been removed, what, a dozen times already? I don't engage in edit wars; I'm not removing content that has already been edit-warred several times. I suggested you self-revert; you haven't. Doing that would go a long ways towards showing you mean what you say with the "respectful" suggestions above. As to missing pings, have you tried processing talk pages by pulling up a complete diff of all comments when you first come to the page on a new day? That's the method I use; perhaps it will be helpful for you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

WMrapids, Excellent; most appreciated. So how about I agree then to leave the article until Saturday evening, if that will give you time to catch up (with me reserving the right to answer any direct questions that come up for me on talk)? Will that give you enough time to catch up? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:12, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Take a look at my response above. We need to focus on specific topics as well. My other suggestion is finding a way to have more uninvolved users participating as things wouldn’t seem so personal. When it’s the same four people making arguments, things become a lot more intimate. WMrapids (talk) 22:19, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I asked a direct question, and you didn't answer it; perhaps we have different communication styles, but I see that happening often in our interaction. Could you let me know if leaving you until Saturday to catch up will be helpful? Because I can plan my editing time to get some other things done in those days. I don't know how your free time is organized, or if you have weekends off from work, yada-yada, and if having a full Saturday to catch up would be a benefit. I also suggest you may be over-concerned; quite a few of the issues (example now, DeVos) should get to a point where we can archive them away within, hopefully, a week. Perhaps it looks to you harder at this point than it really is, and with a few days to catch up, it will look different? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

This isn’t just about my time, it’s about the discussion process in general. We need to find our priority topic, get more users involved and then go from there. You think we can find our priory topic and possibly double user participation by Saturday? That is why I’m agreeing with giving us six weeks (or at least a few) instead of Saturday, again with the exemption of procedural edits. WMrapids (talk) 22:31, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Don't we both agree that our priority topic is NPOV? That's what I see on your priority thread, and that's what essentially the entire talk page is about. You removed DeVos and I appreciate that, as it's one thing we can take off the list. I appreciate the progress and made you an offer to stop working for a few days on an article that has serious POV issues. If you're not going to take me up on that offer, then I'll keep working. No I do not think we can double user participation; it's an obscure and dated topic with negligible pageviews that is of very little interest to most editors. That's why we're working towards a well-structured move discussion that will encourage others to participate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:34, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Then it sounds like we should focus on the move and the "coup attempt" descriptor as it will bring in more users. We had some decent interactivity in the last move proposal, though it was snuffed out by users concerned about the process. So if NPOV is both our priority, this seems to be the way. What do you think? WMrapids (talk) 00:23, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I told you right here (in response to your query) my priorities, focus and timeline; which part of that is not "focused on the move" discussion? What I think is that you still haven't answered whether thru Saturday is adequate time for you to catch up if I stop working, so unless you can answer that, this conversation has probably run its course, as it's now going in circles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:46, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

@WMrapids, as an uninvolved editor, may I suggest that you review WP:OWNBEHAVIOR, with particular attention to #5 in that list? That's the one about leaving notes on other editors' talk pages to discourage them from making any more contributions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Not discouraging them from editing at all. What is suggested is that we slow down, prioritize particular topics for a contentious subject and that we have a consensus established so we don’t have to revisit this article later. The suggestion even includes that I take a break as well so that we may regroup. Don’t know how you arrived at the conclusion of WP:OWN behavior at all, but it is inaccurate. I respectively ask you to strike your comment. WMrapids (talk) 06:57, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, I read it the same way as apparently WAID did; I have established priorities and enumerated them on talk, you haven't responded to those talk queries and plans, you are telling me a) to stop cleaning up an article with considerable issues, b) apparently because I work too fast for you, and c) more concerning, I interpret that you are telling me not to use the talk page to discuss edits. I particularly noted your comment calling out my hundreds of edits (characteristic of my editing on any topic) and that, "You’ve been invested in Venezuelan topics for about two decades and I respect the passion", which seems intended to imply ownership by me, and overlooks the almost four years I was practically absent from Wikipedia pre-2018, and the four years I was basically absent from Venezuelan topics between 2019 and 2023, when I returned to see what was going on with all this new tension in the content area.

My priority is to clean up as much of the UNDUE, OR and POV as possible so that when the eventual eighth move request is submitted (not surprise launched, but prepared collaboratively) the broader community isn't reading junk (GIGO). I left the article through Saturday as promised, but you didn't take advantage of that time to catch up on talk (you made one edit), so it's unclear what the benefit to the article or discussion of stopping my work was (there's so much more to do).

I'm not surprised that this reads as if you are exhibiting ownership to an outside observer. It happens that WAID is one of Wikipedia's more knowledgeable editors on how to present an RFC, and asking her opinion pre-launch of the Move request wouldn't be a bad idea. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:32, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

And, of course, the unfortunate thing in a text-based online environment is that one's actual motives (assuming we admit our true motives to ourselves, though psychology has cast some doubt on that for more than a century now) can ultimately be less important than appearances. It is enough to look like you're discouraging someone from full participation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:35, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

WMrapids, do you see here relative to here how other problems are developing, that seem to be related to your reluctance to engage on article talk ? I'm still not clear on what you're suggesting or requesting, and your post here still seems to be asking me not to use article talk, and you essentially aren't engaging on talk hardly at all. My method is to list anything that needs joint or broader attention on talk, and then archive "Done" items as soon as we're all satisfied. I have raised multiple issues of UNDUE relative to BLPs, and you went to the reliable sources noticeboard without having fully engaged on talk, when my concerns were of UNDUE material from a less-than-highest-quality source; if you had more fully engaged talk before going to RSN, you might have noticed in the first line of my post about Aleman that I had completely missed the fact that he died in the period when I wasn't editing Venezuelan topics. If you had engaged and pointed that out, we would have been more quickly done, and avoided having to weary the community with yet another Venezuelan-topic reliable sources question. Talk pages are the best place for sorting simple matters like another editor thinking there was a BLP issue (in this case), when in fact, the person had died.

Could you at least let me know which of the topics on talk you now consider resolved, so we can archive those and see what's left ? (I'd similarly appreciate if NoonIcarus and ReyHahn could do same) ... I'm leaving the valid issues that were raised about the missing "coup" in the lead until we are further along with the body of the article, as it's almost never productive to try to work out lead issues when the body of the article is a mess and still being developed. And I'm getting through hundreds of sources as fast I can; I don't feel like you are fully engaging talk, and would like to understand what's up. Perhaps you're just busy IRL? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

• Hi Sandy, thank you for your massive contributions. I am being a bit busy, and I concur that I am having a hard time knowing what is going on. I understand that you are deep cleaning the article but the conversation is getting bit frozen due to the frequency in which sections are being opened. I would recommend that you continue let in us know on the issues and after you are mostly done, you let us know with a summary of your view of the event and what are the hardest points to tackle.--ReyHahn (talk) 16:14, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

  @ReyHahn and NoonIcarus:, Got it ... once I am further along on catching up and getting through all sources, I will post one summary of the sections that I think/hope are done, so that the rest of you can opine on whether those sections should be archived. I expect/hope that to happen on or before Thursday, but it could be Friday or Saturday if I hit more needs to respond to noticeboards, which slows down my work of getting through all sources before opining on article naming. By the way, the "Attack" section (which should be the heart of the article) is a complete mess, basically underdeveloped and very poorly sourced, and I don't think trying to fix it before a new Requested move is doable ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for understanding. All that said, there is Wikipedia:NODEADLINE. Take your (reasonable) time but keep us informed.--ReyHahn (talk) 16:49, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Many thanks for the notification. I have to agree with ReyHahn and go back to all the issues that were raised in the first place, but just on the top of my head I can comment that the UNDUE issue with Blackwater founder Erik Prince and the original research issue of Alemán meeting with the US ambassador have been solved. These were mentioned at the Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)#Tags?? section, where the problem regarding the lead remains. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:58, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Leocenis Garcia

Hello dear sandy! When I created the page Leocenis Garcia, I have had put 2 or 3 sentences about his early life. But you removed it with reason of unsupported by reference. I kindly ask you to review this link from which I specifically took those facts. http://tureporte.com/leocenis-garcia-outsider-politico-talento-meterse-problemas/ Worldviewfrom (talk) 12:41, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Tureporte.com is not the kind of reliable source required for a biography of a living person. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:34, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Oww, Okay I understood! Worldviewfrom (talk) 15:08, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Naren.Ayinala

A user appears to be trying to game the edit counts: [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]

It's with an automated tool, because he is making 20-30 edits over the course of a few minutes interspersed between multiple pages, concurrently.

What privileges come with having thousands of edits? I'm trying to understand the behavior and be on the lookout for signs of something like paid editing. DenverCoder9 (talk) 01:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

They already have extended confirmed status, and they are already well beyond the number of edits needed to vote in ArbCom elections, so I can't deduce any possible gaming of the system. Their talk page does show a history of generally poor editing, and I notice many of their edits are unsourced additions. I suggest starting a conversation on their talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

MEVC peer review

Bumping re peer review for the Mount Edziza volcanic complex. Volcanoguy 13:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Volcanoguy thanks for the poke; see my response to Ceoil in the next section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, if nobody reviews it soon I might as well archive it. Volcanoguy 12:36, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Give me another week; I promise to try. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:39, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Mount Edziza volcanic complex/archive1 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:29, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Jefferson Davis/archive1

Greetings, while reading Wikipedia:Featured article review/Jefferson Davis/archive1 I noticed that a little over two months ago there was a request for your input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:17, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the reminder, Jo-Jo; I will try to get back in the saddle starting Monday (traveling now to see the eclipse), but my top priorities are Concerto (my nom), Ceoil at Sex Pistols, and Minneapolis ... best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Minneapolis

I'm pretty much through my first pass through on the FAR. Still some issues outstanding, like self-sourcing in certain sections, but the article has definitely improved quite a bit. I've got Ceoil's band article and then another pretty much stalled out FAR to review at some point; the whole FAR page is largely stalled. I've had the muse to try to see what I can do with expanding a few stubs here and there like Tate's Bluff Fortification and Simpson Harris Morgan, but I don't think I've got enough sustained energy for much of an effort. It seems like there's a lot of "let's make pointless changes everywhere without caring or listening as to why this exists) [newcomers breaking FAC logs, the continual attempts to get rid of A-class assessment because the kids these days can't handle A class not being right after B class, etc.] and it's hard to get too much interest in anything. Hog Farm _Talk 00:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Preaching to the choir ... but what always brings me back is friends ... I will get to Ceoil's stuff and to Minneapolis as soon as I can ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:41, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Administrative State

Ballotpedia has a clear, level-headed, information rich article about the term "administrative state" [12]

Wikipedia lacks such an article. It has only an article about a single book titled "The Administrative State" and an article "Managerial state", with numerous issues, that cites only 3 late-20th century American authors espousing a particular view about what they term "the managerial state".

Should a new article be created and closely follow Ballotpedia's lead, or should it be assumed that "managerial state" and "administrative state" are the same and attempt to wade through the poorly written managerial state? DenverCoder9 (talk) 16:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

No idea; are there more sources on "administrative state" to indicate it meets notability and are there sources that compare or include the two together, to indicate one should be a sub-section of the other? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

After much digging, I can say "administrative state" is much better sourced. "administrative state" and "managerial state" mean different things, and "managerial state" seems to be a niche term used only in the United States by a clique of a few scholars.

"administrative state" is very well sourced and used for a number of purposes, including constitutional law, administrative procedure, and political science.

Ballotpedia's is too US centric, so I've used it as a guide and expanded it to include non-US sources, which are primarily but not only English-speaking. I've also included many examples, since the concept can be hard to understand without concrete examples.

Draft:Administrative State

DenverCoder9 (talk) 22:12, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Looking for old gold

@Nil Einne, Novem Linguae, and Girth Summit: one of you, can't recall which, gave on a dispute resolution forum (AN, ANI, somewhere else?) a brilliant example of how even directly quoted information can contain synth and original research. I can't find that anywhere; any idea where to look? It was so brilliant that I should have saved it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not ringing a bell for me - might have been one of the others. Can you remember any other details that might help bring it to mind? Girth Summit _(blether) 15:49, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

No, I can't ... but if you had written it, you would remember it, 'cuz it was brilliant. It was somewhere in dispute resolution. And someone was challenging my claim that their quoted material was either synth or basic original research. It was an analogy using multiple scenarios to show how even directly quoted material can most certainly be used to build OR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I mean, I write brilliant stuff all the time, sometimes several times per day, I could easily have forgotten. Ahem. Well, maybe not - don't think it was me, sorry. Hope you find it. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:34, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Looking for the LOL/smile emoticon :) Obviously you write brilliant stuff all the time, as I wondered if you were among the guilty parties!!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Maybe I linked my essay User:Novem Linguae/Essays/Problems with quotes? If not, then I guess it was Nil Einne :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:21, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

No, that wasn't it, but it's very good and helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Found it ! [13] But I misremembered the circumstances and analogy from Nil Einne-- still a good one, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Harriet Arbuthnot

It is a truth universally acknowledged that when a page is nominated for FARC that the idiot who wrote it is informed. It would appear that’s no longer the case. I feel Wikipedia is not what it once was! I am well, I trust you are too! The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 19:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Darn it ... yes, you absolutely should have been notified; I'm sorry that I've been pretty much swamped since about May, and did not clue in to that ... I used to specifically check every FAR for notifications, but have fallen down on the job lately. Z1720 please remember to pul up the article stats and make sure all top nominators are notified ! Until I get fully back in the saddle, maybe Nikkimaria will also keep an eye on that ... so so sorry that happened. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Will try - apologies for having missed that. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Slightly pedantically, I believe they meant that Giano should have been notified, as primary author, not them. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, that Giano fellow gets around :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oh please don’t trouble yourself, Giano is long gone and past caring - taken off into the sunset with that dreadful wife of his and deserted me - so cruel! Im sorry to hear you’ve fallen off the saddle, perhaps your horse is badly broken? Shoot it and get another, one must get straight back on before the nerve goes. Wikipedia does seem rather lax though, I expect it will only be a matter of time before some illiterate who can’t read templates will add an info-box to poor, dear Hannah Primrose, Countess of Rosebery - ghastly woman, couldn’t bear her!. One despairs, one really does. Now, go and get back on that horse - I suspect you need the exercise and fresh air - all this constant fiddling about on the internet is good for no one! The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 19:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  I wouldn't wish an infobox on even a ghastly woman ... back on my horse (sorry to hear that heartless Italian man left you). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Harriet Tubman

I am happy to see your involvement in the review. I trust you will see my recent query, but I thought I'd make sure. S Philbrick(Talk) 20:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Sphilbrick; I will check in as soon as I get a free moment ... been traveling, and now doing vacation afterburn to try to catch up. Always grand to "see" you! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

No rush, another editor responded to my query, so I am satisfied. S Philbrick(Talk) 12:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Rephrasing help

I'm trying to avoid close paraphrasing at Simpson Harris Morgan but have run into a tough spot to rephrase. The source is While returning to Richmond for the second session of Congress, Morgan contracted pneumonia at Monticello, Arkansas, where he died on December 15, 1864. Best I can come up with so far is While traveling to Richmond, Virginia, for the next congressional session, Morgan developed pneumonia, and died at Monticello, Arkansas, on December 15, 1864 which is still too close. Any ideas? Hog Farm _Talk 20:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I need to wrap up here for a few hours ... dinner guests due momentarily ... will look as soon as I get back on ... maybe a kind TPS will beat me to it ... Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:12, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

HF, I got coiffed and made up with time to spare (I may be losing my stuff :) How about ...

• Morgan developed pneumonia while he was en route to the next congressional session, to be held in Richmond, Virginia. He died on December 15, 1864, in Monticello, Arkansas, and was buried at the family plot in Clarksville.

Don't worry too much ... there's limited ways of saying he died at Z from X on Y date. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:41, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

• • Thanks! Hog Farm _Talk 21:41, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Re: copying my page

I noticed you copied content from my draft page here and was wondering why. Thank you, Dronebogus (talk) 20:55, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

That discussion is at the talk page of your userspace draft, where you haven't answered the queries about the purpose of the list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

It’s about systemic bias at the relevant project, nothing more. Dronebogus (talk) 21:08, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Invitation to Cornell study on Wikipedia discussions

Hello SandyGeorgia,

I’m reaching out as part of a Cornell University academic study investigating the potential for user-facing tools to help improve discussion quality within Wikipedia discussion spaces (such as talk pages, noticeboards, etc.). We chose to reach out to you because you have been highly active on various discussion pages.

The study centers around a prototype tool, ConvoWizard, which is designed to warn Wikipedia editors when a discussion they are replying to is getting tense and at risk of derailing into personal attacks or incivility. More information about ConvoWizard and the study can be found at our research project page on meta-wiki.

If this sounds like it might be interesting to you, you can use this link to sign up and install ConvoWizard. Of course, if you are not interested, feel free to ignore this message.

If you have any questions or thoughts about the study, our team is happy to discuss! You may direct such comments to me or to my collaborator, Cristian_at_CornellNLP.

Thank you for your consideration.

--- Jonathan at CornellNLP (talk) 17:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Andrew Jackson FAR

Hi Sandy. I was looking over the Jackson FAR and was wondering how much work you think it still needs. Obviously there's been a lot of drama going on behind the scenes, but in terms of the article itself, what's still missing at this point? If the problem is mainly just prose quality/wordiness, I can see what I can do, but I don't want to waste my time if the fundamentals are still weak (neutrality issues, source misrepresentations, etc.). Hope you're doing well. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi, EW! Great to "see" you. The muse has left me when it comes to the FA process; it usually returns, and I hope it will, but for now, I've had my fill of prima donnas. From memory, the article is nearly ready to keep, but the verbosity was more than I could take on. I believe it's worthy of a save, and close, if a good writer (like you and not a prima donna :) will take it on. All the bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:18, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good—I'll take a look when I can. Hoping to see you back at FAR soon: things don't run the same without you. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Sex Pistols FAR

Sorry for being tardy on this, but am almost ready and have called in a heavy to give a look.[14]. I would appreciate, a lot, if you went through before the final voting. Thanks as always Ceoil (talk) 23:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Ceoil: I'm sorry not to have gotten there yet. I'm not ignoring this, but I've busied myself elsewhere, as this discussion almost killed off what little is left of my interest in trying to rebuild FA content and processes. I'm hoping the muse will return soon, as she usually does. But one of the undisclosed reasons I retired originally as FAC delegate (besides my promise to Colin from years before to return to medical editing at a certain point) was that I wearied of working to advance prima donnas and their thankless entitlement. And now we are seeing that entitlement becoming entrenched, endorsed and accepted. So I've detoured for a bit into my old areas of interest, waiting for the muse to return. I'm also really discouraged to see Hog Farm's FAC retirement, to the point that I haven't found words, particularly since the process for replacing him is now corrupted and non-transparent and that hasn't been fixed in ten years. As always, it is the friends made in the non-prima-donna work at FAR, whose work is more selfless and who usually bring me back, so please poke me again if I don't weigh in soon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I think that "I wearied of working to advance prima donnas and their thankless entitlement" is a rather wonderful way of phrasing this. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:29, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Sandy, about the FAC retirement - the short story is I got a promotion at work back in June that has meant I am a lot busier than in the past. Work/life balance got so out of whack that I've been having trouble keeping up with stuff IRL much less on wikipedia to the point where I couldn't keep up at all and it was becoming quite stressful and reaching very bad burnout both on and off wiki. So I've stepped aside at FAC since I don't have the time or energy right now to keep up with it to the extent to which I feel like a coordinator should be (basically, I don't think I could have patrolled the FAC list more than once every month or two), I'm no longer an administrator, and will not be returning as a MILHIST coordinator. I certainly didn't enjoy stepping away from it all like that but the idea is to spend a few months just doing low-level "lurking" (read: vandalism/unsourced content cleanup on articles I'm shepherding) and maybe a few stray reviews but to get things straightened out IRL and then come back once I've got more of a handle on things. The alternative was probably keep going, burn out entirely, and never come back. I guess maybe I could have told FAC that I was stepping away entirely for an indefinite few months and stay on the rolls there as inactive, but it didn't feel right to leave FAC shorthanded like that and I would have felt frequent pressure to try to devote time I truly didn't have for that on a regular basis. Hog Farm _Talk 23:34, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I understand, and half expected that to happen, and congratulations on the promotion and all that ! But still sad to see you go, and the depressing part is that I've been raising for years the problems in how Coordinators are appointed now, and yet no Coord takes that bull by the horns to launch a discussion. It's a total closed circuit now, and they used to call Raul a dictator. At least he broadly consulted everyone involved; that stopped after I left. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:13, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm happy and sad that Hog is leaving - happy because he can...some of my FAs are older than I guess 20% of the current admin corp :) Sad because his gentlemanly and can do conduct on FAR esp will be missed. Ceoil (talk) 00:46, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Ownership edits on Venezuelan topics?

This message is being made after some serious reflection after days away (also after reviewing WP:TENDENTIOUS and WP:CIVIL to check up on my own behavior). This is not meant as an attack, but these explanations are necessary since you seem to be more frustrated with editing too.

You appear to be engaged in ownership edits with Sanctions during the Venezuelan crisis, Operation Gideon (2020) and other Venezuelan topics. Pondering on the issues at hand, I reviewed WP:OWNBEHAVIOR to see if any of my concerns were founded.

Below are examples of ownership behaviors that you may have performed:

Actions

1: An editor disputes minor edits concerning layout, image use, and wording in a particular article frequently. The editor might claim, whether openly or implicitly, the right to review any changes before they can be added to the article.

• With both talk pages, you have bludgeoned discussions and have taken control of the paths in which users must take. You have told users to follow the timeline that you created which you have cited multiple times as objectives to obtain on Talk:Operation Gideon (2020). While this may be with good intentions, it appears that unless the objectives of your timeline are not achieved, then the article is not correct.
• You disputed the word "forcibly" in the article about an armed group trying to remove someone from power.
• Multiple WP:REMOVECITE edits towards my work.

5: An editor comments on other editors' talk pages with the purpose of discouraging them from making additional contributions.

• In an ANI discussing my regrettable comments/edit summaries and my new participation in Venezuelan topics, you persisted on getting me blocked (even creating a "Case Study") despite the user and I already making amends. Some of this will be discussed below in "Statements". In one edit, you cast aspersions towards me saying "a polite POV pusher is the most concerning kind".

Statements:

1: Are you qualified to edit this article? (pulling rank)

• Saying "I don't think you should be allowed anywhere near a Venezuelan BLP. You don't know enough about Venezuela"

2: "I created/wrote the majority of this article." (implying some kind of right or status exists because of that)

• Stated "I'll be happy to go back through this article and do some trimming; that is, since I wrote a lot of the content", then going forward and taking over the discussion process.

4: "Please do not make any more changes without my/their/our approval."

• Saying "gain consensus on talk if you want to add an opinion from a very obscure paper, which no one else thinks worthy of citation", even though no one else said anything about its worthiness except for you.
• Said "you made a messy move, didn't clean up after yourself, didn't seek consensus" even though it was an initial edit, which does not necessarily need approval.
• You said "please gain consensus if you intend to continuing introducing content", later saying I must "convince everyone here" for edits regarding sanctions pursuing regime change in Venezuela. You even agreed that this was the case, though still prevented its addition.
• Arguing that "consensus needed for this addition to the lead, as it is not a summary of what most sources say at all", though this was a scholarly source and you portrayed yourself as an arbiter of what "sources say".
• Such behavior demanding "consensus" and to "convince everyone here" creates an us/them situation, which is not conducive for productive editing.

9: "You're vandalizing my hard work."

• Complaining about "rapid-fire editing has moved beyond what I can keep up with" when you should sit back and trust the process.

In addition, you have persistently been engaged in possible hounding edits, following my edits here (you never edited the article before), here (you had not edited the article since 2010), here and here (you had not edited the article since 2019).

You have a deep history with Venezuelan topics since they were some of your first areas of focus. When allegations regarding Súmate appeared, you began editing heavily on Venezuelan topics. This included you participating in original research, labeling the 2002 Venezuelan coup attempt as "a 2002 popular uprising" (seems familiar) and editing the 2002 coup attempt article with information unattributed to sources in an apparent attempt to attack an individual making statements about possible US involvement (though their standing is much more clear now). Looking at your previous edits (and recent ones), it appears that you have had a clear bias against the Venezuelan government since your first edits and that you may have more direct links to the topic due to your seemingly fervent editing on Venezuela. Seeing how you cited bias as a big no-no in my ANI discussion, it looks like you should be mindful of such behavior too (especially with labeling).

So look, I respect you as a user and you've clearly been around the block a few times. But please be careful with how you are editing; your behavior towards me makes it clear why many users don't want to edit Venezuelan topics. It looks like we have both began editing on different topics in an apparent effort to disengage and to avoid the brink. And for anything that I said that may have seemed personal, I'm sorry about that. I'm really looking forward towards finalizing some of these long discussions with you. Just please remain civil with me; I know that I will do my best for you. WMrapids (talk) 11:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Wall of text

I had hoped your silence for days was because you had reflected on your editing, and had spent some time contemplating changing your ways. Some of these misrepresentations (with partial quotes out of context) are more charming than others; your attempts to intimidate those who disagree with you are becoming more and more concerning, and are anything but charming.

1. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1137#User:WMrapids and WP:ASPERSIONS
2. this ANI on RudolfoMD
3. Advocacy?
4. User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch120#WikiLeaks edit
5. User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch120#RfC: La_Patilla
6. User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch120#Take a break

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:36, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

As I said, it's not intimidation and I reflected on my editing as well. It takes two to have a conflict and I recognize that I'm not innocent either. But what I said was something I've been holding in (which is why I went back a bit) and had to share so you can see where I'm coming from. Even though my statements were critical, they were made with respect towards you because I have faith that we can improve things with dialogue. Overall, I hope we can get on the same page moving forward by airing things out like this. I saw that you were working on featured articles and wanted to learn about the process or help in some way since it would probably be less controversial. Maybe we could start there when we have the opportunity? WMrapids (talk) 22:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

WM, whether intentional or not, you have cherry-picked partial quotes to place them on my talk page to give faulty impressions (which concern me not, because there are too many editors who know me too well for me to concern myself with what you display here). And you have resorted to digging back to 2006 (when I had been editing mere months) to try to build a case (which you have failed to build anyway), you have been as outright hostile to me as you have been to NoonIcarus and were to RudolfoMD, but most importantly ... you have no appreciation for how much work you have caused scores of other editors, to a point of exasperation at RSN and elsewhere with your repetitive RFCs, those to a point that I am concerned we can't launch the Gideon Move Request now because you have so outworn the welcome on Venezuelan topics that no one will participate. It bothers you that I provided my timeline of the work I was doing, and others went along with it, so you state, falsely that I "told users to follow my timeline"? Let's suppose I had done that; no one is obligated to follow me, but if they did, maybe I've earned respect that warrants same. You don't seem to be at all aware of how problematic your edits are, or what an equivalent listing of your RECENT edits would look like; be thankful I've not produced it. I don't view cherry-picking quotes to give the exact opposite impression of what they said to be respectful or helpful or indicative of a way forward; rather, I see clear attempts to intimidate, misrepresentations of who followed whom where and when, misrepresentation of every post you diffed above, and an astounding lack of awareness of how kind and patient SO many other editors have been with you in spite of the inordinate amounts of work your non-policy-based editing has caused. All that was OK, I didn't complain, nor mostly has anyone else; but when you start trying to intimidate, as you've done now several times, that is quite QUITE concerning. You don't understand COI policy, you don't understand BLP, you don't understand UNDUE ... and after spending two months very patiently walking through problem after problem that needed to be solved because of that, and showing you how to do that politely and constructively, you go to NoonIcarus talk and try to intimidate, and come here with same. I do invite you to compare that with the posts I and others have made on your talk, and the patience I've had with you until I left an article a few days after you AGAIN accused another editor of canvassing simply because they responded to me, instead of you, on an article that YOU followed both of us to. And by the way, when you put an article up for AFD, it's on article alerts, and you most certainly can't expect me not to respond to an AFD in one of my main areas of editing ... and so it goes with every faulty accusation and diff above. Please clean up your approach to me and others; I've got a LOT of patience, but you're exhausting it. If you want to find a way forward, your posts of this week, here and at User talk:NoonIcarus, don't exhibit that. Please try harder. Working on Featured articles is a pleasurable activity for me, because it involves almost entirely working with editors who understand policy and guideline, and value collegiality, and are seeking the best content with the best sourcing, not POV. That's a level of editing for you to contemplate, but not an area I engage when there is conflict or I have to work with editors who aren't collegial or don't respect policy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:28, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I respect your take and I'll take it as an opportunity to improve. While you are describing my descriptions as "faulty", you have to see how your behavior is interpreted from a different viewpoint. I'm not saying you're a bad person or that you're not patient (since you definitely are), but that you have to be careful with possible ownership behavior. Just because others follow suit with your edits does not mean you are not engaging in potential ownership behavior.

With that said, it seems like the users involved in our group of topics have said what they have had to say and we have got it off of our chests. And regarding the Op Gideon move, maybe users will be more receptive since it will be from you and won't be another RfC from me (haha). WMrapids (talk) 00:16, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to think I can trust and believe your reconciliatory remarks this time, WM, but the posts you made at NoonIcarus page left me seriously concerned about how invested you were in pursuing your POV, which is quite beyond that of any other editor I've encountered in 17 years of Venezuelan editing, and I certainly hope I'm wrong and you won't revert to your old antagonistic, accusatory, casting aspersion ways. I"m a trusting soul; please don't disappoint. When you extract content from a diff, and read only part of it, and take it out of context, and ignore my good intentions--- I can't take credit for how you (mis)perceive me.

On Op Gideon, I think we should get a few other Venezuelan RFCs closed up before we try to launch that-- the community is quite seriously, really, sick to death of hearing about Venezuela when there's a war in the Middle East. It's waited three years; it won't hurt it to wait a few more weeks, no ? Besides, I still need to sync my sources with your sources, whenever you tell me you're done or close to done, and now (after a few days away), I've lost track of where I stand on that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:33, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm just about done but I'm not in a hurry either. We can take a breather and regroup later since we both seem to be happy editing where we are right now. WMrapids (talk) 00:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Followup: intimidation, COI, and BLP concerns

WMrapids as I was quite tied up most of yesterday in sorting out FAC archives (an effort requiring concentration), I want to follow up today to make sure you have understood the seriousness of my concerns about your editing, which is quite tendentious. That I have been so patient may be misleading you into thinking the miles long list of diffs is not serious. Here is a very small enumeration of some of my concerns:

• You chastise me above (and take out of context, with a partial quote) for giving evidence at ANI that you don't consult the numerous high-quality reliable sources when I said "I don't think you should be allowed anywhere near a Venezuelan BLP. You don't know enough about Venezuela".
  Based on this very clear defamatory, inaccurate, and very recent (October 20) BLP breaching edit (you didn't even get the facts right, and you dug up a very marginal source to defame a living person, and it doesn't appear that you understood that the concocted charges were about his brother, because his brother was driving his own mother's car but didn't have papers to prove it). This behavior (and others) occurred after I stated that you should be nowhere near Venezuelan BLPs, as your POV is too entrenched for you to edit them neutrally. As to the "you don't know enough about Venezuela", setting aside the digging up an obscure source, you apparently didn't know it was his brother-- you took a byline from a bogus Checz article.
• I interpret your posts here as an attempt to intimidate me with "ownership" (with no valid diffs yet), and where you are intimating COI, as you are doing with NoonIcarus with "advocacy", based on your apparent misunderstanding of WP:COI. Please read this arb finding, and then also consider WP:COINOTBIAS in terms of how your deeply entrenched POV is a bigger problem than is my having worked throughout Latin America decades ago. It looks to me like a) you are casting aspersions and trying to claim some connection to what you call "the opposition" because of my time in Venezuela and b) doing the same to NoonIcarus. Based on your definition, I guess I also have a COI with Argentina, Italy, five cities in US states, and breastfeeding, where I could certainly "advocate" for correctly sourced factually accurate information. NoonIcarus is Venezuelan; that he took pictures of an opposition march ten years ago to benefit Wikipedia is no reason for you be trying to intimidate him as you are, and I expect to see that stop.
• You claim hounding above, based on me editing articles after you that I've edited for almost two decades, and in one case, you even claimed that based on an article I created. And yet, you fail to mention the times you have clearly hounded my edits, and gone right after me to articles I have always edited and you have never edited. That I spent four years as FAC delegate and my article editing declined during that time, after which I was mostly absent from Wikipedia for another four years, after which I focused on getting WP:URFA/2020 launched and WP:FAR reinvigorated, meaning my article edits everywhere (including medical) were reduced, gives you no reason to claim I hounded you to articles where I'm the main editor. This comes across as purely an attempt at intimidation. And. You're getting away with it. I am no longer updating scores of Venezuelan articles, in spite of Venezuela being noticeably in the news of late, because I don't want to deal with the hours it will take to correct the tendentious edits that occur after you follow me to articles. I hope you understand that your hounding of my edits has affected article quality.
• You citing this diff of me "complaining" as an indication of your ownership allegation is charming. If I bypass something while editing, you will claim bias, but if I let the talk page know why I haven't yet gotten to something and will come back to it, you claim ownership. Your AGF-ometer is busted; I made that post for your benefit, to indicate I wasn't overlooking something that needed attention.
• The list of diffs of your UNDUE POV edits is lengthy. One example is when you shoved in to a lead here content which clearly didn't summarize the contents; there's more.

I want to make sure it is very clear that if these behaviors continue, you should and can expect a very long list of similar incriminating diffs to show shortly at ANI. By "these behaviors" I mean, BLP breaches, continued harassment, continued misrepresentation of diffs, continued hounding of me to articles I edit, and continued persecution of NoonIcarus along with your busted AGF-ometer which leads to the aforementioned onslaught of aspersions that made me unwatch a page you followed me to. I don't mind cleaning up your POV edits, as that's part of the process, and it's clear you don't yet recognize how deep your POV and your failure to consult best sources are. Please make no mistake that my politeness or patience with you do not mean I am willing to let these serious behaviors go on indefinitely. Yes, a fresh start would be good and I am willing to continue being patient, but my patience is not unlimited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Edward Said

Hi, SG. This was listed as a Good Article in 2010. I have had a couple of occasions to visit it lately, and every time I do, I see some pretty loose prose and, in one case, the recent addition of what I thought was non-noteworthy/undue content. I don't have a good frame of reference for this. Would you please take a quick look and see if you think it is still close enough to GA quality? If you don't have time, can you recommend someone with experience at judging these things? -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Ssilvers, I am on a road trip (eclipse viewing), have exhausted my data limit on my hotspot, and can only catch up at night from the hotel. Very brief glance ... overquoting. AirshipJungleman29 is well versed in GA standards, but maybe another TPS will take a look, since a Palestinian bio is probably a top priority these days. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:32, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. No rush. I'll be grateful whenever someone looks in on it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:03, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Back from the Eclipse? How was it? No one seems to have looked in yet on Said. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:16, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

We had perfect eclipse viewing and amazing other stops along the way. I will be home tomorrow and will need to immediately get down to my non-profit volunteer "job" to do the payroll and catch up there, so my time will be tight for a few days. I completely do not understand GA standards, so am sorry no one else has looked in yet; it's hard for me to understand how such an overquoted article can be a GA. I see Aza24 may have an interest in the topic and may be able to help. And I see an inline comment of concern, but understand that people may be reluctant to take on a Palestinian topic right now. If no one else looks in, you could put {{GAR request}} on the talk page. Or perhaps Iazyges or Trainsandotherthings will look in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:25, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll give it a little more time, and if no one wants to take it on, I'll go to GAR. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:23, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Sandy, would love to work on Said, but it would have to be in late November for me to find time to do so. Aza24 (talk) 04:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi Ssilvers, sorry my internet has been mostly absent these past couple of days. Keeping in mind that the the GA criteria are never as high as you think they are, I think the article's around that point where I wouldn't promote it to GA, but it's not so bad that I would open a GAR for it. Removing those lengthy quotes and tightening the prose a little would probably be enough to keep the green blob. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

No worries. Sounds good. Would you kindly go ahead and do that where you think best? Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Ssilvers this thread escaped my attention; does the article still need a look? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:21, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Someone already did some work on it that helps a lot, but please review the last paragraph of the "Career" section. I believe it is WP:UNDUE. Also, the source, an article in Jewish Currents, contains numerous errors of fact. For example, the article claims that Robert Silvers banned Said from contributing to the New York Review of Books during the 1980s (though Said later wrote for the Review and wrote extensively for its spinoff, The London Review of Books, and the NYRB reviewed Said's books). The reason given for this is because Silvers' brother Edwin supposedly lived in Israel then, but this is an error: Edwin Silvers lived in Middletown, New York, continuously from 1958 to his death in 2000 (his obituary, published in the Times Herald-Record shortly after his death on July 10, 2000, clarifies this), so the premise of the statement is nonsense. That is only one of the errors in fact, but I do not feel comfortable in removing the statement myself since I have a COI (Edwin Silvers was my father). -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:26, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I missed all that ... been distracted ... sounds like I have some reading to do then, and heading out with friends for the evening. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:29, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Ssilvers, OK, already I'm uncomfortable with the "he told me privately" in an essay (non-peer reviewed), so that alone leans to undue. Can you give me the dates when Said later wrote for the Review? Are you able to send me a copy of Edwin's obituary? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Here is a list of articles by and about Said in the Review, which includes this long letter of Said's that the Review published in 1982. [UPDATE: The Times-Herald Record is now behind a paywall, but I have a hard copy of the obit of Edwin D. Silvers, dated July 12, 2000, which describes him going to Israel in 1946 and later returning to New York and then moving to Middletown NY (and another appreciation article in the same paper by Chris Farlekas, which states that Ed Silvers was a "46-year resident" of Middletown, NY).] Here is an obituary for my grandmother, Rose Roden Silvers in the NY Times that states that, as of 1979, my father lived in Middletown, New York. This Instagram post says that Edwin Silvers lived in Middletown in 1987. BTW, he was in Israel for 2 years, from 1946 or 1947 to 1948 or 1949 and never returned to Israel after that. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:28, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Ssilvers ... I'll return to this later today. Because it's a CTOP, I want to do my homework thoroughly here. I hope your people are thriving, and I regret the new wave of antisemitism, as well as Islamophobia, revealed since the attacks and war. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Robert was editor between the 1963 founding and his 2017 death then? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Robert was co-editor with Barbara Epstein from 1963 until her death in 2006, and then he was sole editor until his death. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Done, [15] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:33, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Musing...

...not sure if you have seen any comparable example of a topic being defined on Wikipedia leading to said topic being picked up outside of it, but I defined a topic Arizaro volcanic field and it's being picked up by scientists. Strictly speaking not citogenesis since they are not using our information. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:58, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I think that description pretty well sums up female genital mutilation. I was quite troubled by that article and its FAC, as similar had happened at another medical article (relating to fetal alcohol syndrome, can't remember which, where the author wanted to promote a definition based on private contacts with doctor friends), but I had to keep quiet because of previous interpersonal issues there. In hindsight, it's now called female genital mutilation, so the article can't be challenged at FAR, but Wikipedia is supposed to follow, not lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is also largely responsible for the perception of 2002 Venezuelan coup attempt, and its treatment as a "coup attempt", when what happened is that Chavez ordered the (then professional and respected) military to fire on peaceful protestors, they refused to break international laws, Venezuelan laws, and commit human rights violations, that led to top military asking for Chavez's peaceful resignation, which he gave. But then other stuff happened ... anyway, tendentious editors made sure it was treated as a coup on Wikipedia, and the Wikipedia article (back in the day when it was hard to get info about Venezuela without Wikipedia) fed the event being generally treated as a coup attempt even today, in spite of reliable sources that question this definition of coup. Venezuela had a coup in 2002 pretty much thanks to Wikipedia; had there been more knowledgeable editors involved then, the event would have been more properly treated as an insurrection, and that perception would predominate today, as the facts are now pretty well established. The problem of accurate information about Venezuelan topics still exists today, as the international media glosses over complexities like this, and there has been a determined attempt to get Spanish-language reliable sources branded as unreliable-- which makes it harder to source anything comprehensively. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I guess I can count myself happy that a few lava flows in the middle of nowhere in Argentina don't have BLP or MEDRS issues. Although I am kinda surprised that FGM didn't exist as a category before.

Although lately I am thinking to go into BLP area to improve Rupperswil murder case - pretty sure we aren't supposed to spell out the perp's name, are we? JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 19:25, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I think FGM as a construct/word existed before the edits to bring that article to FAC began, but there was a period pre-FAC where Wikipedia was decidedly leading on the terminology, not following, and using opinions rather than MEDRS sources to push that envelope. I tuned in because of previous related correspondence on fetal alcohol syndrome. Then I decided it was expedient for me to put my head in the sand; fortunately, by the time it was promoted, I had resigned at FAC.

Murder case, name of perp, I dunno ... I am not well versed on BLPcrime, although I'd be most grateful if someone would fill me in, as I've been meaning to deal with a BLP issue on that for several months now ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

It seems to be usual to report the names of convicted criminals (if known) and usually the victims (if dead, if published in multiple reputable sources, and unless the list is long).

As different countries/cultures have different styles, this can lead to regional differences in articles. For example, in the US, it is normal for the police to provide a public list of every person they arrested and why, but in the UK, it's apparently sometimes okay for them to say that it's "not in the interests of justice" for the public to know which citizens they've secretly put in jail before a trial. In Germany, the accused have privacy protection before their convictions (e.g., this war criminal, whose name was not released) and after their sentences have been served.

As with most things, if you think the normal thing to do is ____, and Wikipedia does something else, it'll feel unusual and probably worse. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

In Swiss press, it seems like the convention is to use pseudonyms for the perpetrators, or at least for their surnames ("Thomas N.") - when Blick used the full name, they got at least one complaint. Dunno about the victims, it seems like we usually spell out the given names but I've seen both shortened surnames and full surnames.

Granted, the name question is only one thing in that article. I think given the extent of coverage, one could easily write a FA out of the Rupperswil case but I know nothing about FAs on notorious crimes - anyone got experience in the field? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:07, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Bath School disaster is User:Shearonink and Ted Kazynski is User:AviationFreak. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, perhaps Buidhe has come across issues with use of names in crimes in Europe in their work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Hadn't heard of the Rupperswil case before, but it looks interesting. I don't know that I'd be of much use as far as improving the article as I'm in college at the moment (hoping the summer will provide some opportunity to get back to editing more consistently, but we'll see). I don't think there was much procedural difference between the Kaczynski FA and my other FA due to the first's being a notorious criminal. Kaczynski and his crimes are very well-documented, and the article is a biography rather than something like "Ted Kaczynski bombings", so a lot of the article is about his upbringing/ideological development and how that might have contributed to motivation for his crimes.

I don't know what details have been reported in the Swiss press, but it seems that a lot of FAs on (perhaps less-notorious) crimes discuss the logistics in detail, especially when it's a single crime rather than a string of them like the Kaczynski bombings (Baker Street robbery comes to mind as an example). AviationFreak💬 16:31, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

In Germany they don't publish the full name of the perpetrator even if convicted. If you're researching in public records you have to censor all names you discover there. But you can publish the name if it appears in another source. (t · c) buidhe 17:56, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I am in the middle of a move right now and don't have the bandwidth to help very much. One thing...these type of articles sometimes attract...ummm...let's just say "interesting" people, many with a particular bone to pick or a particular POV. My main concern with Bath School disaster is that I wanted to enumerate the humanity of the people who were affected with verifiable reliable sources & facts, that this wasn't just numbers on a page but this event happened to real people and sometimes that aspect gets lost in the maelstrom of "true crime" aficionados & murderers' fans. And a sort of heads-up warning...it is kind of an unsavory thing to pick through all the reports of a mass murder, one can get a little bit of a PTSD echo-effect from reading through what these types of events cost those who are left behind. Shearonink (talk) 18:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that's one of the things I worry about, not just the murders but also the other things (rape) that preceded them. That and the fact that there are mostly newspapers sources. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 21:20, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Nevermind, here are some academic sources as well Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:28, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, Kaczynski is semi-protected and that seems to deter most vandalism/POV pushing. Don't really tend to have problems, especially considering the subject's notability. AviationFreak💬 23:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

​That said, the academic sources are primarily talking about the news coverage and the consequences for life imprisonment. Not much to say about the the victims and their families or acquaintances.

That said, being on Sandy's talk page I wonder if the tactic pursued at J.K. Rowling to first define how much text is supposed to go to which aspect, and only then filling in the information, might work. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:25, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

In the case of J. K. Rowling, we could sorta/kinda use the weight in academic sources to decide how to (not) grow certain sections too disproportionately. If the academic sources in your case are limited, the exercise is a bit harder, as you have to do an overall source analysis. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, the other sources here are government reports (court rulings etc.) and news articles. They tend to be very perp- and court/crime centered. The only victim/relative centered source is a book by the acquaintance of Carla S. That would be needed to solve the bias issue noted by Shearonink. But eh, perhaps I can work to get this article up to no-longer-maintenance-tagged status at least without needing careful POV tuning or reading trauma/horror-inducing stuff. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 18:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Nevermind, I definitively need to work on this page - it has one source that mostly doesn't source the content, and 5 paragraphs discussion of a crime - the perpetrator is still alive - with no sourcing period. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:49, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I never found the time for a deeper look; I need to get myself re-focused on those editors who warrant my time and attention :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

's OK. Technically, I too am not keen on working on this topic. Maybe the WP:BLPN folks know to help. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

(Looks like Yngvadottir jumped in to help) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

OK, I'm trying to get caught up-- if this has run its course, ok if I archive it ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

A can of worms

I've raised a question at Wikipedia:Featured article review/7 World Trade Center/archive1. I don't know what the answer is and I'm not sure if this situation has ever come up before. Hog Farm _Talk 16:20, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Will look in when I have more fortitude for a tough one :) Missing your wisdom more than ever! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

(Intentionally posting here rather than at the FAR) I'm still inclined to think the original FAC was more focused on the original building and not this newer one, but the new building's article is the one in better shape RE FA standards. I trust y'all will get the situaion sorted out in the best way. I'm far too worn out to try to keep up with the active discussions there or especially at FAC and will probably be an impediment if I try to butt in. Every time I think work is starting to calm down, more gets put on my plate. Add that to Mrs. HF's and I's house hunting become a nightmare, and I just don't have the energy for discussions like that anymore. Hog Farm _Talk 21:14, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm happy for your househunting !!! But these interest rates. And I thought accountants work wasn't 'sposed to be still hectic this time of year. (I drove through a corner of Missouri a few weeks back, and thought of you.) As to which is more representative of the original content, since Epicgenius will have to be the one to do the work either way, I'm not going to press them to change their mind :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:19, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm in audit, not tax, so my schedule is a lot different than what is typically thought of for CPAs. I'm still holding out hope that I'll be able to return to a higher level of activity in December or January; I keep thinking that Battle of Poison Spring needs a touch-up from when I worked on it several years ago and the topic is fairly important. Hog Farm _Talk 03:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Checking in

Hello again. Apologies for leaving yet another random message on your talk page. I just wanted to pop in to say that I hope everything is going well with you both on- and off-Wiki. I have noticed all of the discussions taking place on the WP:FAC talk page, but I honestly just do not have the capacity to really wade into any of that.

I know that it can be tricky to have discussions about how to improve the FAC process and space, and I wish you the best of luck with it. Apologies for not being any real help with that. I am currently taking somewhat of a break from Wikipedia and limiting my activity to working on projects in my sandbox (so mostly taking a step back from reviewing and such).

On a super random note, I am thinking of picking up Spanish again. I only mention it because I believe you are a Spanish speaker (and if I am wrong, then apologies for that). I have a decent grasp on it from a few years of classes in high school and college, but it would be fun (and very useful in general) to get back into it. Anyway, rambling aside, I hope you have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 02:27, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Aoba! It's always nice to hear from you. Yes, I learned Spanish as an adult, and speak it today at an almost native level (I am usually asked if I am Cuban by native Spanish speakers, probably because my secretary in Venezuela, while I was learning, was Cuban, and I took a lot from her). It's a very easy language to learn; it's all in the attitude (just dig in and go for it)! One thing that I did while learning was to play the radio and television non-stop in the background, which tuned up my ear and jogged me to look up phrases I didn't know. Of course, these days, you have wonderful other options, like YouTube! Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I completely agree that positive attitude is always best when learning a new language (and really anything in general). It is fun to use music, television, and different forms of media in general with language learning. It just makes it feel more alive and interactive. There are so many resources. I am not too worried about it. Just have to fit into my schedule lol. Aoba47 (talk) 02:15, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Where to ask questions about German-language sources

Greetings, do you know anyone (or any venue where) who to ask about a German language source? I and Yngvadottir are deadlocked at Talk:Rupperswil murder case#On the use of the mobile phone data about how to interpret this German-language source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

How about if you a) make a post at WP:RSN, and then b) go here and ask there for them to c) come to the en.wiki to respond to you RSN post ? Another option is to post at WT:GERMANY. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:27, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Having been pinged to Sandy's talk page, I found this discussion, and weighed in with my understanding of the German.—S Marshall T/C 15:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Thx (and for the befuddled, the conversation has stayed at Talk:Rupperswil murder case, rather than at RSN. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:10, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

On calling it like you see it

Hi Sandy, just a note (without commenting on others feelings), that you telling my way back when that one of my articles "needed serious literary intervention" was something I needed to hear and probably the most useful feedback I have gotten here. Thanks for not being afraid to speak your mind. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:40, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I seem to separate the lamb from the sheep, and reveal the pure-hearted and worthy of keeping as friends; I enjoy your articles, and glad my non-invective was of some service. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

FAC history and culture

Posting here to encourage discussion on a safe page; I am contemplating whether to work this in to an Essay page, or accept the inevitable decline. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

At FAC, the objection to "Done" tick marks came before the transclusion limits problem impacting FAC archive pages was discovered. On the template limits problem, when I was doing a month-end tally, I couldn't figure out why the total nominations listed in a file were off, until I realized the last FACs on the archive pages were dropping off, so the number of FACs promoted and archived didn't match what showed on the page. After I went through and deleted some of the tick marks, they dropped nominations re-appeared.

But before that, there was a problem with the "done" tickmarks, because they rendered the pages a) too long, and b) meaningless and jumbled for me (the only closer at the time) in terms of knowing what was actually done. For a nominator to take space on a FAC page to state that something is done isn't helpful; it's not "done" until the reviewer indicates they are satisfied. And back then, the way a reviewer indicated "done" was by striking the objection. So we were getting unhelpful and unnecessary "done" tickmarks, followed by reviewers striking, resulting in lengthy FACs and impossible-to-read jumbles. That's the background on the tickmarks.

The entirely separate, and cultural, issue leading to impossible-to-sort FACs also has several different components (and I suspect that Mike Christie and I define "regulars" on the page differently, as my list includes those who have been so alienated they won't return until the problems are addressed, and most of these problems are unknown to newer "regulars", who know nothing else but the system now on the page).

One component is that new participants, when first approaching FAC, wlll today find an over-complicated, indecipherable and at times unloadable page, and be put off. Reviews have declined; the off-puttting page doesn't help. Compare any FAC page today with, for example, a page at AFD, DYK, GAN-- any other forum-- and it becomes clearer why editors may avoid engaging. Page functioning and instructions are unclear, and the entry barrier is high. So a walled garden effect predominates, and those who have the long-standing presence or prominence in the process to attract their own reviewers are happy with the system because their articles are getting promoted, while overall the page is stalled and clogged. Current "regulars" have no reason to object to this dysfunction, because they are getting their bronze stars. So we are left with a self-perpetuating dysfunctional process, in decline. As one indication of the content areas in decline, the (FAC stats tool, Long and short FACs, sort by supports) shows that three biomedical FACs historically had the most and fastest unopposed support (Tim Vickers and SandyGeorgia, see Tourette syndrome, DNA, Bacteria, and by the way, the top support count at Samuel Johnson). In my last medical FAC, I had to bring my own reviewers. Never mind that I spent years selflessly reviewing the most boring MilHist, ship, hurricane, pop culture, or any other kind of article possible; a MilHist regular declined to review a medical article because it was outside of their area. A medical article today can't buy a review. And yet, there was resistance when I suggested the process has become too MilHist oriented, and that once thriving areas of FA growth have gone completely missing.

Another cultural issue is the old mantra that "FAC is not peer review", has been replaced by the new culture, where FAC most clearly is functioning as peer review (to the detriment of the actual Peer review process, as "old-timers" used to go there, and they no longer do, as PR has moved to FAC). The FAC pages were simpler in the past (see my previous point) because you either Supported, Opposed, or entered limited commentary. If you had to engage the extended PR that is now happening on FAC, the convention instead was that you gave only a few examples of the deficiencies, suggested what was needed (a copyedit, better sourcing, whatever), and Opposed. Under that scheme, the process worked MUCH faster than it does today, as sub-standard FACs were moved quickly off the page (under two weeks was my goal), which allowed them to return faster and be promoted quicker than today. You can poke around in the FAC stats tool (eg, year summaries, average durations) that Mike developed (I believe partly in response to my long-standing concerns in this area), and you can see the evidence for these concerning trends. (I used to be attacked for "no evidence" for these statements I knew very well to be true, having read FAC top-to-bottom near daily for seven years-- Mike's stats show them clearly.) For ten years, we've had longer (but not necessarily better) FACs, of longer duration, with a higher promotion rate (ie, more sub-standard promotions being pulled through by brute force). "Old-timers" aren't going to engage a page where they are forced to return over and over again to address comments on sub-standard article nominations that should be archived with content re-worked via the peer review process.

An entirely separate cultural matter is the leadership role, somewhat related to institutional memory (moi). The archiveN issue has surfaced several times over the years (mostly at FAR), and needed to be addressed. I am perhaps the only institutional memory who could have answered those questions, and the discussion needed to happen at FAC (rather than on a subpage) precisely for the reasons of institutional memory (keep it in FAC archives-- I'm not getting any younger, and that institutional memory needs to be preserved). Unfortunately, that long discussion happened to coincide with several others, and 60% of my posts over four days were dealing with deferred housekeeping, including discovering that no one was watching the page archivals and important threads had even disappeared from the archive search tool. Perhaps in hindsight, we might have moved that discussion to a subpage, but there's already a problem of institutional memory, so it's just unfortunate that Mathglot's query contributed to a perfect storm of page overload. (One of the Coord roles is to keep an eye on overall page functioning, and if that is done, we wouldn't have to overwork to catch up on problems.)

And then another cultural issue is that many "old-timers" did not pick and choose which FAC to review based on their personal topic preferences; they chose based on a desire to preserve the overall status of the bronze star overall (many also active at WP:FAR, doing selfless work, rather than reward-culture seeking via new personal stars at FAC only). To best help the process overall, they engaged the entire FAC page; they/we have no interest in viewing the page via a nomination viewer, whereby they can pick one FAC to review. They/we WANT to be able to read the entire page, see trends, spot problems, decide then where their engagement is most needed.

So, all of that combines to show how the dysfunction has accumulated towards the overall decline in the FA process, which has real consequences-- what brought me back temporarily to the page. We have excellent editors and reviewers, like Vaticidalprophet, caught in this "cultural war" and completely unaware of what other-functioning of FAC looked like. Vaticidalprophet says here, that they'd likely have no FACs if we went back to more expedient archivals. That they would have more FAs, better review, and quicker FAs if the page were functioning properly is something completely unknown to newer participants, as they have no experience of the page as it was before, with more engaged reviewers, and quicker turnaround.

The number of FAs has now declined to the point that FAC can't feed the needs of TFA, so saving older stars via FAR and URFA/2020 has had to fill the gap. Re-runs at TFA were once extremely rare; now they are essential, as there aren't regularly enough FAs to feed 365 annual TFAs without them. The overall process is failing, but the "currents" are happy as they are getting their stars, and critics are shunned.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:03, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I will say that outside of PMC, who I review because I know her work is high-quality and fashion is an underrepresented topic, I do source reviews at whichever article seems interesting to me. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I noticed (Ealdgyth and I thank you :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:55, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I tend to review whatever shows up in the box above the talk page at a moment where I have plenty of free time. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:25, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

At FAR, I am far more likely to invest time in saving an article about a topic I have familiarity with and offline sources about. I was hoping to save Pioneer Zephyr but ran into another editor actively obstructing my improvements to the point I gave up and allowed the article to be delisted. I think this is a problem across FAR - you or I can fix weak prose on any topic assuming we have the sources, but when you need really niche in-depth (and usually offline) sourcing about something obscure, it's a significant challenge. I had enough offline sources I might have been able to make that save work, that is, before I got so frustrated I walked away. Two of my FAs are heavily reliant on offline sources, so in a hypothetical scenario where Providence and Worcester Railroad ended up at FAR and I wasn't around for whatever reason, someone trying to save the article at FAR would be working with one hand behind their back if they didn't have access to the offline-only Edward A. Lewis and Ronald Dale Karr books heavily used for sources, or the Trains Magazine articles. You could apply this to many topic areas. If you asked me to do an FAR at Autism, I would hardly know where to start when it comes to sources. If you asked me to help at say an FAR of a British admiral from the 1700s, I'd be nearly useless because I wouldn't have access to the required sources.

Outside of the dedicated community at MILHIST and a few similar isolated examples, there's not really much of a sense of community in many topic areas; with one exception, nobody else at WP:TRAINS was interested in any of my FACs. Just as Sandy mentions needing to actively recruit reviewers, I have experienced the same necessity to avoid nominations being archived, not because anyone has opposed, but simply because of too few reviewers. Quite frankly, I don't know if I would have been able to get any FACs passed if Guerillero hadn't taken the time to provide a source review on my first nomination, where I was able to learn from my mistakes and come back a second time with an article that sailed through FAC smoothly.

I can't speak to if it has always been this way, but at least in my time here FAC has been an extremely time-consuming process; each FA I have represents dozens of hours of research, writing, and proofreading, and that's before responding to concerns raised by reviewers. Then, I typically spend several months at FAC before attracting enough reviewers to get a promotion. I don't have that level of time available to me anymore (and have lost a lot of interest in editing lately), and so I have stopped participating at FAC for the time being. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:17, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I am noting I've seen this and will try to organize my thoughts in the next few days. Bear in mind I no longer have the time for wiki I once did - or rather, I use the time I once spent on wiki on other more productive pastimes. I miss the community and the research but... with more limited time, I have to prioritize on what makes me happy and/or makes me money. Ealdgyth (talk) 23:48, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Ealdgyth, I'd be most interested, when you have time, on hearing of any important items related to functioning of the process overall that I may have left out. There's so much more, but I wanted to get a start ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:53, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

One thing that has come up, which I didn't want (yet) to get into, is the relative recent absence of a female presence, compared to the last decade when the very frequent regulars and delegates and reviewers besides me were Karanacs, Dana boomer, Maralia, Nikkimaria, Ealdgyth, Awadewit, Slim Virgin, Moni3, TK ... ok, who'd I leave out ... Raul was certainly a supporter of the women in the process. What became of the gender diversity, along with the topic diversity ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I am disappointed at our difficulty in recruiting a more balanced editor population, and I wish I had the answers. I have tried to encourage women I know irl to try editing but have had no success. Annie's work with Depths of Wikipedia gives me some hope, however. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

That is such a strange thing for FAC old-timers, as there was no doubt that women kept FAC going for years :) For years, I scoffed at the gender idea, thinking others just didn't realize how many we were. Lately, I'm not so sure, but then lately, my bigger concern is the lack of Spanish speakers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

This is an interesting perspective. It hadn't occurred to me, but it makes sense when you put it like this. I don't have the depth of knowledge on FA that other commenters do, but I would be interested if you did a more detailed write-up of the issues. It sounds like they are a mix of technical and cultural issues? I've found that documenting and suggesting small ways to get started in a process helps with recruitment and retention. That essay is geared towards academics, but some of these ideas have been added to the growth team extension for new users. This is to say: if you have ideas for how to address the problem, I think it would be good to put them down in a central place (or maybe you do and I'm just underinformed) so that others can point to it in the next brainstorming session or as part of training. An essay laying out the problem to be solved is a good place for that! Even if you decide against writing more on this, thanks for the interesting read and new perspective. — Wug·a·po·des 07:53, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Wugapodes; thanks for the feedback and thoughts, but mostly for taking the time to give encouragement. I've had a tough year with my husband's health, and encouragement to bring me back to a happy, optimistic place is appreciated.

Yes, I have tried writing up my thoughts. And tried. And tried.

1. I wrote User:SandyGeorgia/Achieving excellence through featured content; it was intended to mostly encourage medical writers to come back, but the advice at the bottom applies to all. And to put my money where my mouth is, I spent months getting {{FAC peer review sidebar}} up and running, and responded to every PR there. I gave up; it was making no difference in the FAC problem.
2. Z1720, Buidhe, Hog Farm and I pushed forward Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-01-30/WikiProject report; this was intended to help engage more people in the FA process and remind that the value of the FA star is only as good as the entire pool. FAR operates at a deliberatively slower pace than FAC, and the stakes aren't as high in terms of criticism offending a nominator; we hoped to bring in more people via the backdoor and reinstate the collaboration that once existed across all FA process pages.
3. User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox4 was my attempt to help make the FAC page move faster; it was ignored (well, that's a mild description of how process change proposals are received at WT:FAC). If people didn't know a time when the process functioned better, they can't appreciate the need to try something new. The FAR page functions smoothly as a deliberative two-phase process; an article doesn't move to the second phase until conditions have been met in the first; the proposal was to move FAC similarly to a two-phase process, where an article doesn't advance until sourcing and copyright status have been vetted, thereby conserving FAC resources devoted to copyedit and other matters until the basics are in place.
4. I floated User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox11 up to all the FA process Coords, hoping to encourage more diversity and transparency in the Coord selection process; it received less than tepid response. There's no motivation for process change.

I think I've run out of instruments in the box of tools for trying to reinvigorate the process and get it back on track. When the regulars are regularly getting their stars, there's no reason for them to listen or care. And it was that AN thread that you read that prompted me into my last foray into FAC. It's disconcerting that canvassing is no longer canvassing; coordinated editing is no longer a thing; those with a certain POV or personal preference can impose them even upon Featured articles via methods that once would have been shut down as canvassing or coordinated editing, all while the FA process regulars are ensconced in their walled garden, not even realizing that no one cares about their bronze stars anymore.

What was once a beacon towards best practice, exemplifying Wikipedia at its finest, has become a closed, little known or visited corner of Wikipedia where few dare to or care to enter. And if one tries to communicate these issues, the latest trend is to shut down critique via the all-the-latest-rage charge of bludgeoning. S Marshall's response to that charge was one of the best things I've read all year, so at least there's some good news in the overall bleak picture. With increasing needs to focus on health issues at home, I find retirement more and more appealing. I don't know if I have any ummmmph left in me, and find my disappointment coming through in the tone of my posts, so it's probably approaching time for me to move along. Seeing that canvassing is no longer canvassing has made me realize that my views on Wikipedia are probably dated. I appreciate your thorough read and attention to my thoughts. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:48, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Whatever happened with the proposal at sandbox4? (rhetorical, I know it was never acted upon). I would have been then and am now in favor of trialing something like that. I've had several instances where I do a first time nom spotcheck after the article has a number of supports on prose, and end up checking the whole article, because it's already gone so far in the process. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I also think that something along the lines of sandbox11 would more likely than not be approved if put to the community as an rfc. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:17, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

<sigh> ... two valid options I've sandboxed, waiting for the community to work up together a fresh look at FAC functioning ... but now we've got another premature RFC, with vague and piecemeal solutions to long-festering problems. The retire button beckons; I don't know if I have this in me anymore. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• Well, thanks for those kind words!
  As far as I can recall, in my seventeen years and a little change as a Wikipedian, I've interacted with FAC on one (1) single solitary occasion. So basically I know nothing about FAC at all, but let me take you through my experience, because it was pretty troubling.
  On 23rd March 2020, I closed this RfC. It contained credible allegations that Renamed user df576567etesddf, formerly Cliftonian, had submitted Ian Smith to FAC, and that it had passed despite being a whitewash and an NPOV failure. Ian Smith was subsequently delisted at FAR, and then a bunch of Cliftonian's other FAs were also delisted, in my view rightly.
  On the basis of this experience, I've come to think that there's nothing preventing articles that fail core content policies from getting promoted to FA. Is that so?—S Marshall T/C 15:36, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  If reviewers don't notice or don't care about the POV, that is. Now my articles (volcanoes, mainly) don't get many questions about NPOV and due weight; whether this reflects the topic or is a problem I'll leave to others to comment on. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  Yes. It has always happened (I've got some bad passes from my tenure, eg ANAK Society), but now it's more likely than ever, because those who understand and acknowledge the problems have given up (or died) or completely left the page in disgust, and criticism is stifled by those who are happy with the status quo. The bronze star has lost all meaning, and in my FAC history and culture draft, I've barely scratched the surface of why that has happened. I dare not press too far, as simply stated, no one wants to hear how pervasive the problems are. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  ... right. I'm now trying to think of a proposed solution that isn't extremely drastic and drama-genic.—S Marshall T/C 15:57, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think there is one. I think the inevitable is now ... inevitable. Continued decline into obsolescence. Hopefully I'll be dead or demented by the time it reaches that, so I won't have to see the end. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  Yannow, I am not sure that folks no longer care about POV issues in FAC. I note the discussion in the Philosophy FA about how much due weight to assign to certain aspects, for example. On the other side, a number of POV FAs like Ian Smith and Barack Obama were delisted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  Misti isn't quite ready for FAC but when it goes, it might become a case study on source reviewing - there are a few sources that IMO are justifiable but an eagle-eyed source reviewer would remark upon. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:27, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  PS, I'm hounded out of the room every time I raise concerns at FAC that there are editors who have strings of FAs that aren't. If I raise that problem, "evidence" is demanded, which would mean pointing fingers at certain editors with deficient sourcing, or deficient prose, or getting their FACs promoted on regular support from their Wikifriends, and so on. I've occasionally tackled a situation where the evidence is obvious (Socrates Nelson, John Wick), but it's dangerous territory, and concerns fall on deaf ears. Simply because those who are getting their stars want to continue getting them, and concern for overall functioning of the process has been lost since the process was split into three separate kingdoms. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  I am contemplating whether to work this in to an Essay page, or accept the inevitable decline.

  We preserve thought and knowledge by distilling them into essays. If you choose not to write the essay, nobody will criticise you for deciding not to, but then all this thought and knowledge you have are tears in rain. If you do choose to write it, then a non-zero possibility of change exists.—S Marshall T/C 16:19, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  I seriously don't think I have anything left to give. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I've thought about this all week, and I think it's all come down to ... too much time and effort is spent dealing with prose and not enough on the actual content. The fact that sourcing isn't dealt with by most of the reviewers at FAC is just one symptom of the problem. And I've come to the conclusion that the source reviews I used to do ... contributed to the current problem. When I used to do source reviews, I had the luxury of doing them early in the reviews, so other reviewers got used to not having to engage with the sourcing (and by extension the actual content of the article) because I was there and dealt with it. But when my life changed with mom's increasing dementia and then her death-combined-with-move ... reviewers kept on not-engaging-with-the-sourcing-and-content even though the source reviews now tended to come later and later in the process. So many reviewers got into the habit of not thinking about anything but the styling of the prose that they can't imagine that they need to engage with the content/sourcing/NPOV/etc. So now we get reviews that never really engage with the content itself but just polish the prose... which leads to more reviews that are really just examples of copyediting the article to make it look like the particular pet-writing-style of the reviewers and isn't really making the content better. Looking through the current candidates, I see many examples of very nitpicky changes to wording that are pure style and not necessarily any improvement to the text of the article. This has led to folks outside the FAC bubble considering FAC to be just a bunch of folks who polish words without actually worrying about the actual content of an article. It's always had that reputation.

The couple of times I've tried to reengage with FAC it's been an uphill battle to get folks to even see that sourcing and content are important. It wasn't a "fun" process for me, and frankly, my energies for wikipedia didn't need it. Once I thought it was worthwhile to have a process like FAC, but frankly, lately, I've not missed it.

To some degree, this is a problem with much of wikipedia, and it derives from the very thing that makes wikipedia strong - the decentralized nature of its processes. It's hard to get a process that enforces standards when there is no "authority" to make those standards in the first place. Although I'm not impressed with FAC recently, I remain positive about wikipedia as a whole. I just don't have the time to engage in a fight with a windmill right now and am not sure I ever will again. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:25, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes to all, but ... If you look at the issues at the AN that led to my recent foray back into FAC, and combine those with the tendentious editing I'm dealing with elsewhere, the whole outlook is not promising. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:WBFAN

• This is the ongoing problem of people racing each other on Wikipedia.
  Consider Lugnuts, who is Wikipedia's most prolific article-starter ever, and now site-banned by Arbcom following this Arbcom case. Lugnuts started 94,367 articles.
  His method was to visit databases about sportspeople, such as olympedia.com; find someone without an article; cut and paste the database information into a standard article template; publish it; and then do it again. During his sprees he often created articles at the rate of one a minute. Lugnuts had the autopatrolled user-right, so we've still got nearly 90,000 "articles" that are (a) biographies and often BLPs, (b) not watchlisted by anyone, and (c) of immensely low quality. The cleanup operation is positively Augean and there's significant opposition to the idea of mass-draftifying them.
  I can see a clear parallel with WP:WBFAN. People are racing. But I want to draw your attention to the discussions at WP:LUGSTUBS and WP:LUGSTUBS2 in which the community does get behind drastic and drama-genic ideas to solve the problem.
  Wikipedians are often skeptical, critical thinkers who have the encyclopaedia's best interests at heart. Those discussions are painful, bruising experiences full of accusations of bad faith -- but they succeeded. And I think it's entirely possible that your proposals might go the same way.—S Marshall T/C 16:39, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  Yes (it's what some call the reward culture). We once could proudly say that WBFAN wasn't like DYK, or WikiCup, or any other place that rewarded bling over quality. No longer true by a long stretch. To such an extent that I'm unsure why I am still working at WP:FAR and WP:URFA/2020; why are we delisting older FAs that are often still closer to fulfilling WP:WIAFA than some of the newer ones are? What game are we playing here? Part of my FAC resignation (besides my promise to Colin years before to return to medical editing) was that I was sick and tired of "working" up to eight hours daily to feed prima donna egos, and realizing that those who gave back were few and far between; has that changed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  To be blunt, the answer to "has that changed?" is no. Ealdgyth (talk) 17:21, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  I think it has changed; for the worse. There's only one Nikkimaria. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  Ealdgyth, on the bling/reward culture, I was just over at User talk:Nikkimaria on another matter, and noticed another factor that has long troubled me. It started when I noticed that Gimmetrow was never thanked for his selfless technical work to keep the processes going, continued when I noticed you were rarely thanked for source reviews, and now I see the same with Nikkimaria. It's as if it never even occurs to the star collectors that there are people devoting hours to making those stars happen, and yet the thanks are few and far between. The real work is taken for granted, while FAC pages are filled with prose-light commentary that is more apt for talk pages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:45, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

  S Marshall I went back and looked at your Lugstubs links, and yes, when you give them something concrete (like I gave them WP:DCGAR) people get behind cleanup. I spent a good chunk of this year on DCGAR, and am grateful for the community effort, but it was demoralizing work (when you factor in that it included copyvio, non-notability, text-to-source integrity, and GA process failures, and all those problems had gone on for years). I have no reason to think such an effort will yield anything wrt FAC (other than the bit we're already doing at URFA, knowing that there are hundreds to thousands more down the line). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Ask for quick feedback...

...whether Guallatiri is FAC-ready. Mostly MOS questions since I don't easily notice them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:20, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Andrew Jackson

The Andrew Jackson article has suddenly taken on new life again. It could be random, but my guess is that the article's increased scrutiny is indirectly related to contemporary events. I very much appreciate you trying to keep it stable at this time. Because of the extent of my engagement with the article- attempting to address the length issue you were concerned with and the bias debate that had sent the article into a tailspin- I'd be delighted if it actually makes it through FAR. But given the latest whirlwind of activity, who knows how it will all fall out? I just wanted to thank you again for your active engagement as the swirl around the article has seemed to pick up. Wtfiv (talk) 16:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I think keeping an eye on it a bit longer in FAR is a good thing :) So we wait for EW ... I do worry that it will destabilize if we let it out too soon :) Thanks for your good work and watchful eye ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Prostate cancer again

Hi Sandy, Prostate cancer is edited, refreshed, and reorganized thanks to yours and Colin's comments. If you have a chance to revisit and give it another read, I'd be much obliged. SG talk page watchers are also most welcome to contribute any critical thoughts. I'm hoping to bring this to FAC sometime soon(ish). So any pre-FAC criticism is helpful. Thank you as always, and I hope you're well! Ajpolino (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Will get there when I can, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:04, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Linking publishers

I'm being told that it is not normal to link publishers for articles, and have had publisher links removed from a template and article that I am the primary editor for. I feel strongly that these links should be included. Before I get any deeper in this - is it truly not normal to link publishers in FA-quality articles? I've had the impression that this is not universal but not unusual in quality article writing. Hog Farm _Talk 23:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm having almost the exact same discussion with the same editor on my talk page, Hog Farm! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:59, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Sheesh, people get their knickers in a twist about the goofiest things. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

As Nikkimaria will probably say, we can or cannot as long as we're consistent. We most certainly linked all publishers at J. K. Rowling. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I am in the "don't link" group, but as long as it's consistent, it's something I think should be up to the main editor. Ealdgyth (talk) 00:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. (I was having conversations about CITEVAR with that editor more than 10 years ago!). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

This kind of thing is so discouraging to the people who actually build articles, only to have to engage in discussions about personal preferences and breaches of CITEVAR. Ten years worth ... <sigh> ... reminds me of other perennials. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:14, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you

Dustfreeworld has given you a cup of tea. Tea promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day ever so slightly better.

Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a tea. Enjoy!

--Dustfreeworld (talk) 03:47, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Dustfreeworld, for tea to go with my tears :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:08, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

--Dustfreeworld (talk) 10:14, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

New message from Jo-Jo Eumerus

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Mount Hudson § On the 1991 eruption. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Current GAN on Penang

Hi there, after lurking through current GA nominations, I realized that one of them, Penang, was previously invalidated roughly a year ago (discussion) as it was self-nominated and passed with the use of sockpuppets, who edited exclusively on Penang and Penang-related articles, including on George Town, Penang, which was also delisted for identical reasons.

While it is indeed true that these cases will not prevent a future nomination at some point in the future via an independent GA review, the fact that the current nominator is a fresh account created only about a month or so ago that is *also* exclusively editing on Penang and Penang-related articles in an identical manner (including George Town, Penang among others) seems oddly quick, suspicious and convenient. With their edits, it seems like they also intend to put George Town, Penang up for GAN as well after Penang gets re-passed as a GA. What do you think? 49.169.99.156 (talk) 05:11, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diplomacy

I found the time to read through your comments at the close review at AN and wanted to thank you for stepping in. Managing conflicts can be hard: looking at the context of the dispute, identifying issues, and raising them politely but firmly with colleagues is not easy work, so it's nice when people step up to ensure a healthy community. Thanks for setting a good example! — Wug·a·po·des 07:37, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you,

		The Special Barnstar
		Thank you for all you have done. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 03:38, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Especially for your first-rate work at WP:FAR and WP:MED :) --Dustfreeworld (talk) 06:35, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Dustfreeworld most kind of you! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:12, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm happy to see you are still going strong, and remain focussed on what matters: improving articles! Geometry guy 22:39, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Geometry guy what a real pleasure to see you! It's such a different place here now, in so many ways; I often wonder how your absence affected the trajectory of top content work on Wikipedia, and whether the decline we see today would have happened if we had maintained the consistent shepherding evidenced in your work. In other words ... miss you, hope you are well, and it's bittersweet to see you again !!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:15, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

And your reply was a pleasure for me also, Sandy! I think it was inevitable that as wikipedia and its articles matured, general editors would lose interest in favour of topic editors, increasing bias and eroding npov. Also, I think there is a broadly left-leaning bias in wikipedia anyway. I could never have fought these trends, and I don't want to spend my free time getting into stressful conflicts anyway. But I like to learn stuff, and there are many substandard articles on things I am interested in, so perhaps I will spend a bit of time on that. In some ways, being insignificant again makes it easier. I am well, and if you want to tell me more about the changes that I have missed, please do. I hope you are well also. Geometry guy 22:33, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello again :) Ah, the changes. In no particular order:

1. I frequently say the darn pingie-thingie ended our connections to each other; editors don't come to each other's talk pages and really talk to each other as much as we used to, rather at each other via pings.

   Gone are the days when FAC was a hub.

2. And related to that, what once was considering canvassing, no longer is. Since you can find a sneaky way to ping any editor to anything, the whole idea of canvassing as we knew it (bringing in editors or friends who don't watch a certain area to reinforce your POV or personal preference) is out the window. All that remains is, you can ping anyone you want to anything as long as you do it neutrally.

   And that has meant furthering what was once considered coordinated editing.

3. Attention to notability and encyclopedic content has been replaced by a WMF-mandated desire to represent certain demographics; what started with women in your day has now grown to encompass ... anything that is not a white male. Meeting notability for some groups has slid into nothingness, and there aren't enough editors to keep up with new page patrol and AFD to reduce the non-notable.
4. Gaining adminship these days is much less about being a trusted editor who has demonstrated knowledge of content buildikng in the trenches, and much more about the fact that we need all the warm bodies we can get to deal with the volume of disruption of all kinds.

   Seeking adminship is now almost completely disassociated from writing top content; minimal engagement at the content level is sufficient to gain the tools.

   So increasingly we see editors who have literally never written an article determining the fate of those who do.

5. The way you kept an eye on Every Single Aspect of the GA process was unparalleled. As the FA process has declined, more and more editors pursue the GA assessment level, and the volume is too much for one person to do what you did.
6. DYK hasn't changed one iota. Unfortunately!
7. The Copyright battle was lost years ago; the "Project" does its best to keep up, but barely scrapes the surface, doing probably just enough to forestall a lawsuit by being able to claim due diligence.
8. POV everywhere is almost insurmountable. The noticeboards largely don't function unless a) something is utterly obvious and b) the right demographics are involved that trigger interest, and c) deep digging to recognize the POV isn't required. So you have to pick your battles, and let a lot of outright blatant POV slide, and that extends even to BLPs. The old Siegenthaler days have been forgotten. (Speaking of BLPs, did I mention DYK hasn't changed one iota? Oh, I repeat myself.)
9. Those who can argue a point, for example like Colin, at length-- shouldn't; it's called bludgeoning these days. That's an essay (see my user page).
10. As it has gotten harder and less rewarding to create content, standards of what defines acceptable content have declined. Barely good enough is pretty much the endorsed standard these days. There aren't enough knowledgable editors to staff the noticeboards, and add that to the canvassing issue = if you post to a noticeboard, the most likely responders won't be independent.
11. FA isn't. I never really understood GA, rather relied on you when problems came up, so I can't speak to how or if the standards at GA have evolved. My hunch is they have probably moved down, because generally all content has moved down.

    You missed WP:DCGAR-- delisting of 200+ GAs by one editor, with one of everything (copyio, non-notable, undue, and complete made-up random stuff)

12. WMF pushes one wacky program after another, and WikiAffiliates can pretty much wreak havoc across entire content areas, with there not being enough editors to keep up with the damage.
13. Math articles still have problems with English :) :)
14. Many of the old memes are out the door. "Wikipedia is not therapy"; yes it is, if you're in the right demographic. "FAC is not peer review"; yes it is. "Fringe" no longer has any meaning, as the push for inclusion and growth means anything goes.
15. And everything together has rendered the kerfuffles about certain sockmasters benign in relation to what goes on these days at Wikipedia. In the "be careful what you wish for department", I'd almost wish to go back to the days of the biggest concern being whether a Mattisse copyedit had done more harm than good!

Am I well? Here's a fun story from when a tree tried to kill me, but I survived :) My most adorable husband nursed me through, and in my convalescence, I still beat him at card games even with halfa-brain (I think he let me win :) The music on my user page tells the story of our days; growin' old ain't for sissies, some days are harder than others, but Paul's letter to the Philippians soothes the soul.

So where's the joy in Wikipedia when writing and curating top content is no longer the focus? When an old friend stops by, it's priceless. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:26, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I think you overestimate the WMF's involvement in our content decisions.

The complaints about math articles have landed at Wikipedia talk:Make technical articles understandable this month, if anyone's interested. They feel approximately the same to me as they did a decade or more ago. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think I overestimate the role of the WMF in promoting and funding Wiki-affiliates, with minimal guidance or oversight as to policies and guidelines. As but one example (and not the worst one), why isn't Wiki Ed better funded ? They at least try to help keep student editing policy-based, and intervene to assure communication with professors who have never edited Wikipedia, and even help clean up the damage.

On math, yep, no change over the years; the biggest problem in our math suite is not understanding the math, but the poor prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that Wiki Edu is an affiliate; I think it's just an independent non-profit organization that chooses to do something on wiki. But generally the rule, as it was told to me (and apparently announced a dozen or so years ago), is that affiliates based in wealthy countries need to raise half of their budget themselves. This protects them from being totally dependent on the WMF. I don't know that the WMF is providing fully 50% to Wiki Edu; it looks like Wiki Edu does not choose to disclose any of their grantors in their annual report.

The complaints you make above are "WMF-mandated desire to represent certain demographics" and "WMF pushes one wacky program after another". It might be fair to describe Wiki Edu as a former WMF program (the organization began by spinning off an internal program and the WMF staff who were working on it), but you seem to approve of that one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

They've at least turned themselves into something helpful to the unpaid volunteers :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

It's a bit of a catch-22. If they didn't exist, we would probably see fewer new (student) editors, so there would be less need for them to apologize for the mistakes the new editors make.

But I am (presumably) going to die one of these days, and if we don't get new editors in (students or otherwise), nobody will be here to replace me when that happens. Finding another "SandyGeorgia" requires us to suffer through about 100K first edits, nearly all of which will be suboptimal. Put another way, during the entire decade of Wiki Edu's existence, they have barely brought in enough newbies to find one replacement for you, or to have a chance at finding three of me. I don't know that they did find these replacements, but that's the kind of volume we're looking at. We need the newbies, but they're also kind of a pain while they're still newbies. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:19, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

We need to encourage newbies who stick around, but students don't stick around; they're doing it for a grade, and they're gone as soon as they've gotten that. So at least Wiki Ed contains the damage in the short time they're here. (And you will never be replaced; Wikipedia isn't as nice as it was when any of us started, and now it's more about pushing a POV or product or person, and leaders with experience aren't emerging-- they're leaving and dying. Nor will Monnriddengrl ever be replaced, to give an example of how badly we're losing the copyright battle.) And part of the reason there won't be more of "us" is that FAC is no longer leading the way to Wikipedia's best work, with a group that also engaged policy and guideline pages to establish best practices (the SarahVs, Colins, Gguys, Awadewits, etc). Putting up barely good enough work, barely notable, inadequately checked for copyvio, with noticeboards unable to keep up with POV is the new reality, and the "newbies" don't even know the difference. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

To a first approximation, nobody sticks around. Counting only registered accounts that have ever made an edit (i.e., did not give up after creating an account), the median number of edits is two, and both of those edits were made on the same day.

A few students do stick around, though some of them create new accounts, so you only find this out by asking them. I've talked to two of them myself (neither of whom wishes to be identified as the poster child for students who keep editing). Wiki Edu Foundation does not track or particularly encourage students to continue editing; their hope is to retain the instructor, rather than the students.

Although I understand some of your concerns about FAC, at least in part, I wonder if the shift in the community is more general. We are no longer trying to create content; many editors are trying to prevent others from creating content that we dislike, and our method for doing this is to pound on The Rules™, instead of common sense, knowing what good writing is, working together, etc. As a simple example, some years back, an editor declared that an article was "too promotional" because it said that the multinational company had offices "in more than 25 countries". I don't think that's promotional, and I don't think that it would have been improved by writing "in 26 countries as of Month Year, with offices presently being organized in two other countries with an expectation that they will open during the next six months", or as "in 26 countries" with Template:Update inline set to trigger in a few months. But even if you thought it was promotional, what happened to WP:SOFIXIT? The whole article was rejected, on fairly flimsy grounds. Realistically, there aren't very many corporations with offices in 25+ countries that we shouldn't have an article on. I think the reaction was driven by the fear of having a Wikipedia article that sounds anything like a corporate website, and an unwillingness to be seen as putting their stamp of approval on anything that could be questioned or might be slightly imperfect. This kind of reaction is not what you get when people know how to write a decent article and see their role as improving content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

We are no longer trying to create content; many editors are trying to prevent others from creating content that we dislike, and our method for doing this is to pound on The Rules™, instead of common sense, knowing what good writing is, working together, etc.

You summarised it so well WAID. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#How do we welcome new medical editors? --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

As noted above, I admire that you persist with Wikipedia, despite all its flaws. I think all the world should be very grateful that this tree did not fall 1 inch more to the right. I lack the competence and time to comment on every change you note, but they do confirm to me that Wikipedia has been subject to the kind of institutional capture by ideologues that we have seen in political elites, from mainstream media to academia. In short, subjective viewpoints from minority groups trump objective facts. I face this problem in my day job, so I don't want to deal with it also in my free time.

I have always been more interested in improving poor articles to an acceptable level than in making the most beautiful encyclopedic articles the world has ever seen. I enjoyed my time doing some of the latter, e.g. via WP:FAT. Perhaps GA standards have gone down a bit since I left, but the project has still been successful in raising the proportion of articles that have had some independent quality control to 1 in 175 (although note that I almost never reviewed a GAN).

The articles that have many editors are either partisan, or mired in disputes, but there are also many articles that are crap because no one cares about them any more. In this climate of fewer impartial editors, I wonder if there might be some value in having a acceptable articles project, with no nomination process at all - just a tag that an independent editor, after making minor improvements, considered that the article was not terrible. Then there would only be a review process where such tags could be challenged.

(PS. Hi Whatamidoing - I noticed that complaints about maths articles have not changed, but this is because there is a constant tension in Wikipedia between being an encyclopedia and not a textbook versus making content as accessible to readers as possible. Maths needs to learn to provide better prose explanations and more links to textbook material. However, you won't convince more editors to do this in their free time if you browbeat them with complaints.) Geometry guy 00:55, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Your "acceptable articles" idea is interesting, but brings us back to the other problems. Yes, Wikipedia has become the domain of ideologues, and as the proportion of editors interested in overall quality has declined, there just aren't enough editors to think about another assessment level. More and more it seems that editors are here for the bling, the perceived social capital, or the perceived power, or pursuing/pushing an ideology, and less and less for what we thought we were doing in the last decade-- building a useful reference. I do miss the kinds of conversations we used to have ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:38, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I enjoyed our conversations also and am happy to be having one with you again. I can understand pov-pushing well enough to dislike it, but was never really into barnstars/bling, except only for appreciative comments from someone I respect. How active are Wikiprojects these days? I expect it varies a lot. My vague "acceptable articles" idea would be some sort of universal B/C class, so it is completely redundant if Wikiprojects are working well. Certainly, I would not want to draw editors away from GA and FA, hence there would be no community processes beyond a talk page. Anyway, I almost certainly do not have the energy to pursue such an idea (and it would need a better name!).

I noticed you mentioned Philippians above. Although I am an atheist agnostic, I am very interested in early christian origins and teachings. In the years since I was active on Wikipedia, I have explored such interests, including making my own translation and commentary of the gospel of Mark (other projects have included trying to understand how microprocessors work - success! - and trying to understand the second genetic code of transfer RNA - failure!). What part of Philippians do you particularly like? I confess that I fail miserably at "Do everything without grumbling" ! Geometry guy 21:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

WikiProjects in general have also died out, relative to the days when you could be reasonably assured if you asked for help, you'd get it. The niche/ideologue WPs are strong. I suspect the only really active areas is where the special interests can be pushed ... Meetups ... DYK ... in addition to GA.

Mark, microprocessors and RNA ... sure I see the connection <grin> ... glad you are keeping entertained! The "fret not" and rejoice parts keep me going, when friends all around me seem overwhelmed by the state of the world. Even in hard or terrible times, I know how much I have to be thankful for. Maybe it's perspective: when I lived in Argentina, I witnessed a kidnapping, a suicide at my feet, got caught in a shootout, had the house next door blown up. When I lived in Italy, the lack of health care access was frightening. When I worked in Brazil, Colombia and Paraguay, I couldn't cross the street unless my employer sent an escort. And of course, I lived in Venezuela where you can get thrown off a building, beaten to death, tortured into submission, or raped until your private parts are destroyed. I've outlived my mother, and my husband has outlived both his mother and father. My offspring are happy. So all in all, I find that "rejoice" and "fret not" are a good approach to keep me from succumbing in despair to the horrific things happening everywhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:10, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

In contrast, my life has been pretty easy. I will be happy to chat more, but I need to sleep soon, and also I discovered yesterday that Richard Dawkins interviewed Steven Weinberg in 2008 and has posted the interview recently. Horrific things happen in this world, but amazing things happen too, such as the James Webb Space Telescope. Geometry guy 00:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

My Wikipedia-life's been pretty good so far except for these days where I need to do the updates of my audited content. As a small consolation, I keep stumbling on things like Hells Bells (cave formations) that I wrote but forgot about... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

RBS

Hello, Sandy, and Happy Thanksgiving!

I suggest the following tweaks for the Robert B. Silvers article:

• Instead of "Later career years" for the heading, how about just "New York Review"?
• At the end of the first paragraph under the same heading is a sentence that says: In 2012, he added, "I can think of several people who would be marvelous editors."

I'm not sure that we still need this sentence (after his death). I don't think it adds anything to his biography. But if you delete it, please move the ref down to where it is used next.

• American Academy of Arts and Letters appears twice in the article (incl. once in the Lead) and should be linked both times.
• Should we add another sentence to the lead from the article's "Reputation" section?
• Is the first paragraph of the Reputation section too much of a quote farm? I think the Joan Didion quote could be sacrificed without losing much.
• Sherrilyn Ifill should be added to the list of Robert B. Silvers Lecturers at the end of the Legacy section (see this).

Ssilvers (talk) 23:48, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Ssilvers I'll look at these when I get a free moment (unless someone else does first); have to focus on finishing up that table for AN. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

No rush! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:31, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Medicine Barnstar
		For your work in Clinomorphism. SVcode(Talk) 22:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, SVcode; that was very kind of you! (That article was a mess, no?). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:02, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

It is still a mess but it's much better thanks to you! SVcode(Talk) 00:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

That thing needs to go to Wiktionary, but I have no idea how to make that happen or how to tag the article so someone will make it happen. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I tried to make it happen: here. But Wiktionary sometimes deletes new entries for reasons I find obscure.—S Marshall T/C 09:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, S Marshall ... I shall submit it to AFD then once i have time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Editor experience invitation

Hi SandyGeorgia :) I'm looking to interview people here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 12:43, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Laino source

I have added content from Laino 2006 for the William Utermohlen article. I'm here on your talk page to ask if you believe that the source has been fully used and the article is now comprehensive, or if there are still some things that I have missed, and could add to the article. Thanks, Realmaxxver (talk) 16:12, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Realmaxxver I will look as soon as I'm able, but I have had some real life tragedies and am working on two funerals in the near term. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I had no idea that happened. I understand. Realmaxxver (talk) 15:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	I haven't told you how much I appreciate your work on the Parkinson's article. Even as a someone with PD I'm learning from it! Doug Weller talk 17:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Doug Weller, I appreciate that; sorry things IRL have been quite rough for me lately and I'm finding myself constantly exasperated and out of patience. Be well, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Don’t worry about it. Believe me, I empathise with that. But thanks for telling me. Doug Weller talk 18:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

PS, Doug Weller one interesting side note about the synucleinopathies is how market/advocacy driven everything in that area is. Which part of the brain the Lewy bodies attack first determines whether one ends up with what is called dementia with Lewy bodies, Parkinson's disease dementia, or Parkinson's disease, but the different invested parties fight each other rather than working together, and end up making less progress as a result, compared to, for example, Alzheimer's. The PD people won't give up their Michael Fox-driven nomenclature, and the LBD people won't give up their territory, so we end up with a confusing nomenclature and different advocacy orgs not working together on one spectrum all driven by Lewy bodies. If you give dementia with Lewy bodies a solid read, you'll end up learning as much about Parkinson's disease and its dementia as you can learn at the PD article. I am constantly frustrated by how advocacy-driven the issues are in the area of synucleinopathies, which is probably a big part of my frustration about the focus on one image, when the entire article is a wreck. To write these articles, one has to have a good understanding of which parties are leaning which direction with their advocacy, so actually, History is the best starting place! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Wow. I really need to get my head around that. I know there’s DNA research being done and I’ve donated my saliva and taken part in some movement research. Logitech even gave ma a mouse. I have no idea where my consultant stands on all of this, just that he’s well respected and a really lovely person. I don’t want to pry but I am impressed by your knowledge. As I said, I want to help Erica, who did the actual drawing. The confusion isn’t surprising fome people who have no experience with Wikipedia being advised by someone who hasn’t much experience with uploading images! Doug Weller talk 19:10, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I am so terrified of images, but I suspect I've warn out my welcome with Colin :)

So, imagine if all the PD and all the LBD people joined forces and worked together, instead of fighting each other for market niche ... it really all comes down to which part of the body the little buggers attack first, and if all of the invested parties were on the same page, the resources would go so much farther !! But the researchers have their niches, ditto for the advocacy groups ... while all the Alzheimer's people are behind one big org. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	Tricolor Barnstar
	If I'm not mistaken you've received this barnstar in the past, but I guess one can't get too many of them, especially when hard work deserves to be recognized. I send you my utmost respect and very best wishes. NoonIcarus (talk) 19:48, 26 December 2023 (UTC)