User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch96

Enjoy

Enjoy your Summer! Biosthmors (talk) 15:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Dsm-5

Hello! I've been checking regularly and now see that the DSM-5 has finally arrived at the University library here. I do find it very odd that an online version isn't available, but anyway! My thinking is that I will scan whatever articles are of interest to you and send them to you by email, since you will be best able to extract what information you need. If you have the time, give me a list of articles, I will get it to in the next few days before I head off on a short trip. If there is no particular urgency from your perspective, and there well may not be as I see that you are on holiday, then let me know, and I may just do it after I return. --Slp1 (talk) 12:39, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Slp -- that is most welcome news. I am not on holiday-- I am just extremely busy through August. If you could for now send me the sections on tics and Tourette's, that will get me started ... in the fall, I need to write a whole new article on motor disorders, so I'll eventually need more, and will eventually update Stereotypic motor disorder. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good! I'll try and get to it either today or on Monday. --Slp1 (talk) 12:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Mission accomplished very easily and the results are "in the mail". I hope they are usefulSlp1 (talk) 13:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Slp, I emailed you ... I think you may have sent the wrong pages ??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I got the email and responded with the full version a couple of days ago. Maybe it is in your spam box or something? Or got lost in the ether... If you don't find it let me know and I will try sending it again. Slp1 (talk) 10:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Just a note

Did I tell you I bought a second place on 4 acres in Portola, California?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so-- did you feel the earthquake last month? We may visit ... but I've been saying that for a long time, huh? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Bought a short sale in February for a weekend place! I was in NV when the earthquake hit. But that's all everyone was talking about that weekend. No damage, but it did shake the last of the pine needles off my roof! Yeah, you have, let me know and I'll roll out the red carpet for you!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

We will ... someday, soon, I hope! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wind Talker sound suppressor

Have you actually read the sources cited there? Someone not using his real name (talk) 20:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Musicals

Dear Sandy, would you kindly comment [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Musical_Theatre#Instrumentation here?] Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, S! Wow, déjà vu ! I barely have time this summer to keep up with the most essential on my watchlist-- I peeked in, and that is so idiotic that I don't think my help will be needed. Good to see you, as always, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Advice

Excuse me Sandy. I've been wondering this for a bit and need help deliberating on it. The other delegate at FTC hasn't been active for around two months and I have tried asking him to help with the closing of nominations but unfortunately he's unable to reply. I want to get someone else to make the workload easier but I don't know what to do in terms of recruiting. GamerPro64 13:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) GamerPro64, I'd look for someone who is a: familiar with the ins and outs of the criteria and nominating procedures, b: trusted by the community in general and FTC regulars in particular, c: not afraid of closing hard decisions, if they come up, and (preferably) d: has written (alone or in collaboration) at least one FT (related to point a). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• Hi, Gamer (and thanks for jumping in Crisco). I've held off answering because I'm not entirely sure what you're asking-- it seems that, considering the criticism in the FA director discussion, you are worried about what process you should use? I may be spectacularly missing the point, but I don't see a problem with starting a talk page section where you say that another delegate is needed, ask for recommendations, hear proposals, pick one based on the criteria for example Crisco lays out, and put that suggestion forward for endorsement (or not) by the community. Unless your question is whether you should go to an election model? As of now, all we have to go on wrt the election model vs the delegate model is the 2012 FA RFC, which rejected the election model. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I guess I can start a new thread on the talk page. The reason why I didn't do that originally was because the previous delegates, excluding me and Wizardman who became delgates when the process began, have volunteered. I mean I can think of a person to ask since he's been a big help for the project but might as well listen to some other thoughts. GamerPro64 14:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Citation Barnstar
	Hola, gracias por tus amables consejos y tus correcciones acerca de Wernicke. Luis cerni (talk) 21:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

You shouldn't have feared...

I would never have accepted either, like Brian. I do find it interesting that I've never been selected as a poor abused overlooked person though.. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

grrrrr ... Anyway, I figured it was about time I let you know that I was to blame there. I couldn't ever have done it without you ... your work was more important than mine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I just burned out on doing all those source reviews. I couldn't face one more music FAC... thank you for the praise, by the way. I think you told me once that you didn't put my name forward for delegate and why, so the apology isn't really needed. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, SandyGeorgia. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Real (Ivy Queen album)/archive1.
Message added 19:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DivaKnockouts 19:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration case

Hi Sandy!

The history of the evidence page contains a small selection of remarks by the other party at IRC. All of the quotations concerning gender-related violence have been removed by Risker.

ArbCom wrote new rules of evidence for me.

It would be useful to list other examples of mistreatment of women on Wikipedia, even using these rules of evidence. Your memory is better than mine, and you have considered the cases closed (particularly following one apology, some months later), so I won't list cases here. Perhaps you could say something that would highlight the problems of administrators and others turning their heads away and excusing misogyny.

Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Kiefer ... thanks for stopping by. As noted above, I am and will be barely able to keep up with even the most important on my watchlist for the next month. If and when I get free blocks of time, I will try to do more than just revert obvious issues on my article watchlist, but I can't promise anything.

Now, to your concerns, the MOST sad part is that the misogynistic attacks aimed at me in particular are in plain evidence on highly trafficked pages at this moment, admins see it and do and say nothing, and the misogynistic issue which you correctly pointed out a very long time ago somewhere and for which admins incorrectly admonished you (blocked you? I can't recall) are diffable and known to literally scores of editors who have chosen to remain silent. Since one such diff can be found at User:Iridescent's talk, perhaps he will locate it?

I'm not sure there is much I can do to help in the new environment of cabalism and bands of bullies on Wikipedia. I participated in an Arb case years ago (2008?) that saw the backbone of an admin cabal broken, an admin desysopped, another admonished, and admin cabalism was diminished for years after that. Admin cabalism is back, I have no doubt that the arbs are aware (although they might not be aware of the Who's Who among the different factions and how those factions are affecting content review processes while protecting their buddies), but what is certain is that as the community knows darn well what is going on and is silent, there is little that can or will be accomplished in an arb case. Can I go and find all those diffs right now? Unlikely. The broader community knows very well what is happening and is silent. That's not something I can fix-- particularly not at a time when I simply do not have enough large free blocks of time to go out and search for diffs. I wish you the best, since what is happening to you is not fair-- no one ever said Wikipedia is fair.

While you are here, could you or someone please explain to me why there has not been a broadly circulated petition to ask the WMF to cease employment for those who act inappropriately, even in unofficial fora, towards the website they are employed to further? I am unsure if the current case can be solved by the arbs, but I do not know why a single one of us dontates our time to a venture that hires people who can behave in the ways we have seen-- why has the community not risen up to sign a petition asking that the person be removed? Why do any of us continue to participate here? Perhaps because we still care about justice but then human history is littered with people who have tilted at windmills ... That's all the tilting I have time for today. See if one, just one, of the scores of editors who know where to find these diffs cares to do so ... if not, bah. They will likely have their way with you, because the community lets that happen.

By the way, Kiefer, as is the case with Malleus, I don't always agree with you and I don't always agree with your methods or tone, but there is no doubt that (like Malleus) you take principled stands, and for that I respect you (both). You are welcome to diff this post to User:Risker, but since I don't have time to search for diffs, I'm afraid my feedback isn't very helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sandy!

Thanks for your quick and thoughtful response. I also asked Bishonen if she had diffs, since she is even less in complete agreement with my positions and tone, and so would be even more credible! (Hmmm..., perhaps for the prosecution....)

I asked you directly because you had asked me not to continue discussing one post, which as far as I know was very out of character---which is different from the case at hand.

I shall write more later. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:51, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

ah, you see ... I had forgotten the Bitchonandon case ... and there you again have evidence of admins overlooking misogyny, and even worse ... one admin threatened me in that case, so I was again silenced by admin threats (no, not The ed17). I had all the diffs once, but anarchy has taken over here so thoroughly that ... bah ... why are we working for a WMF that accepts the kinds of things it does from paid employees? I don't think even ArbCom can now rein in the level of cabalism and anarchy that is prevailing here. And as far as I know, none of the cases being obliquely referenced here are at all out of character ... they are recurring and the norm and aided and abetted by friendly admins. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Link to evidence on the talk page

Wondering if you are against links to evidence sources on the talk page generally or just wish the links provided were more specific? We can make them more specific / adjust them. Editorial judgement will of course still be needed no matter what we provide. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Have adjusted the TRIP link so that it only shows secondary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I was having a very hard time understanding your posts ... your addition here showed with an edit summary of arb cases (from the post above it), and you reference "evidence" when I suspect you meant sources. It is hard to believe that we have a MEDRS setback of this magnitude at this time ... a real indication of how declining editorship and increased automation is impacting editing, even now of medical articles. I can't wait to see how detrimental this is when universities start up in the fall and student editors grab sources from automated lists, and then when knowledgeable editors attempt discussion of sources, they (or run-of-the-mill POV pushers) can say, well, your talk page template recommends that source. We should NOT be using automated tools to recommend sources-- appropriate sourcing requires a real brain, real eyes, and editor discussion and discretion. Removing the primary sources may help, but nonetheless, we are still replacing editor knowledge and discretion with a bot, and POV pushers and unknowledgeable students WILL use that to advantage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Have changed the wording to say "Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about X" to reduce any potential confusion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I am glad at least the primary sources have been removed-- that is an improvement, but for gosh sakes, how was such a mistake made? Where are the careful eyes that have spent so many years nurturing MEDRS? More to the point, if such a sweeping, boneheaded thing ever happens again, will someone ping MastCell (talk · contribs), Colin (talk · contribs), etc to the discussion? What if we had missed this until the university term starts? Was I going to be the only one to notice it? <resentful on> Did I really have to take time out to deal with THIS just as I had tried to archive and take off to attend to real life issues? <resentful off> Do we really want automated bots guiding students and POV pushers? Anyone who finds that template useful for a particular article can review the list and install on the talk page, but it's not useful for those I edit, and I don't want bots recommending sources for POV pushers and student editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I use these search tool primarily to find the sources I use. Would be great to have Colin and MastCell weight in. Will ping them. I do not believe this will have a negative effect on student editing. Do not think it will have a positive effect either. Many of the issues were ones of plagarism and simply not understanding the sources they were using. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

You bet it would have had a HUGE impact if I/someone had not noticed that primary sources were being recommended on talk pages. Use of primary sources inappropriately was one of the many problems with student editing. And this highlights a problem with the increasing reliance on automation to replace editor discretion. There is no way that a bot can replace knowledge about which are the best sources for a given topic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

No but a number of fairly routine search strategies are useful to help find appropriate references. Appreciate your picking up of the issue in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

MEDRS edits

Hello Sandy,

In response to the deeply felt concerns you raised about recent MEDRS edits, I just wanted to reassure you that no-one involved in the talk page discussion wanted to diminish the guideline in any way. My understanding is that there are multiple eyes on the guideline page, including your own (when they're free to be there of course!). I feel it's good to have thoughtful talk which isn't just defence against attempts to assert particular POVs. Hildabast was one of the founding members of the Cochrane Collaboration and I think her expertise is of great potential value to the project.

Best wishes, 86.161.251.139 (talk) 09:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, 86 ... one problem I am having is that Hildablast's posts aren't always comprehensible to me. I haven't yet determined (only because I am very busy IRL right now) if that is because English may not be her first language, or if I am not spending enough time to try to parse what s/he is saying (in one long series of posts at WT:MED, s/he appears to be saying we should be advocating on Wikipedia against sources rather than stating what reliable sources say). As you likely know, there is a significant difference between real-world research and writing for Wikipedia, and Hildablast seems to be advocating in directions that may be useful in her real-world writing, but less so on Wikipedia (recognizing that I may be parsing her posts incorrectly).

Another issue occurring there is that, in fact, there are very few eyes on MEDRS these days (evidenced by the Very Bad Bot Application that has resulted in lists of primary sources being recommended on the talk pages of medical articles-- a severe setback after YEARS of careful nurturing of the MEDRS guideline. That list will further the issues of student editors expanding stubs based on primary sources and POV pushers using primary sources inappropriately in medical articles). The knowledgeable eyes that have dealt for years with the kinds of issues that occur in actual editing of medical articles and who used to carefully watch MEDRS (examples Colin (talk · contribs), MastCell (talk · contribs), NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs), Eubulides (talk · contribs), TimVickers (talk · contribs) and others that figured in the writing of the guideline are no longer so actively involved.

A third issue is that those changes altered enough text that it was hard to tell what was what ... careful proposals to make sweeping changes to long-standing guideline pages would typically include a side-by-side analysis of existing text and proposed text, and a discussion more lengthy than two or three editors over two or three days. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

A lot of previously very active medical editors are now no longer very active. This is definitely unfortunate as there is still a great deal of work to be done. I believe very much in the importance of WPMEDRS's emphasis on the use of high quality secondary sources. And if you drop I note regarding issues on WTMED I will be sure to weight in. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks for the thoughtful communication, which I really appreciate. I understand the type of concerns you're raising, though I don't feel I'm the best person to respond to some of them.

• To take your last point first: one of the reasons I came to your talk page was to try to allay your understandable fears that the recent edits involved "sweeping changes". Apart from the initial removal of the slightly odd statement that meta-analyses—and, implicitly, also systematic reviews—are "easier to understand" [1] (maybe true for the aims and conclusions, but scarcely for the vast majority of the work), my edits were intended to clarify rather than change. In two of the edit summaries I linked to WP:BRD to make it clear that I recognised there might be need for discussion.

• As regards User:Hildabast's project talk contributions, I generally find them extremely thoughtful. Gaining familiarity with Wikipedia's complex culture is a continuous process—one which never really stops... And IMO thoughtful project talk comments which implicitly challenge an existing position or perception are both legitimate and healthy (cf Colin's clarification here [2]). I appreciate your perception regarding a possible COI; my own understanding is that her contributions to Wikipedia are part of a shared desire by NIH and WP to collaborate more closely (see [3]). Personally, I feel that's a great thing. 86.161.251.139 (talk) 12:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you again, 86, for the helpful feedback. (As you may have noticed from the post at the top of my talk page, I am extremely busy IRL through mid-August, and haven't been adequately keeping up, so a series of sweeping changes affecting medical articles is frustrating right now.)

I stopped reading The Signpost a few years ago after several changes at the Editor position led to an increased focus on editorializing over factual reporting, along with some problems with very poor writing, so I wasn't aware of that article.

In the topic area I mostly edit, there are potential and serious COI problems specifically with positions taken by some employees of the NIMH, and the NIH (or NIMH, can't recall which) long had incorrect information in some of its handouts, so while I agree that NIH/PubMed collaboration is generally a good thing, once again, bots cannot substitute for editor knowledge and discretion on individual topics. NIH employment in and of itself is not necessarily a conflict here, but we do need to be aware of potential COI issues-- that wasn't any part of my original concern, but now I am aware.

I'm curious to know why you mentioned COI in your post above this one, since I had not previously mentioned that and was unaware of who Hildabast is. This is a potential problem on some articles I edit:

Bastian has since arranged for two of her team members to spend part of their time using their scientific expertise to improve the quality of Wikipedia's medical articles.

I trust the team members will be aware of potential COI wrt Susan Swedo and PANDAS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Many are aware of the poor quality of much NIH content. And there is universal agreement that this for example is not a good source [4]. The plan is to use high quality recent systematic reviews as references. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you brought that up, because the Medline articles are full of errors, and yet our infobox forces us to link to them, in spite of known inaccuracies. This is yet another frustrating issue where bots and automation and technical issues override editor knowledge. We should not be forced to link to known inaccuracies in infoboxes-- the NIH information on TS has been wrong for years, in spite of letter-writing campaigns to get them to address the inaccuracies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The reason why I tolerate them is that 1) they are in very simple English (Wikipedia is not) 2) they are mostly okay (no seriously dangerous problems like with much of the web) 3) they are free and not trying to sell anything. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Sorry, I now see that my mention of COI stemmed from a misreading of your post (doubtless influenced by an awareness of the ubiquity of potential COI). On a side note, I find this misreading of mine (and to some extent the whole discussion, regarding a rather new contributor) a bit embarrassing. I feel we should be helping her—including pointing out any legitimate concerns she may need to address. Regards, 86.161.251.139 (talk) 15:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Hello SandyGeorgia. The IP mentioned that user:Hildabast works at the NIH/National Library of Medicine and is a founder of the Cochrane Collaboration. I first met Hilda when she went to Wikimania last year. Perhaps you remember in 2009 when the NIH reached out to the Wikipedia community to collaborate and the community was unable to organize to respond. I believe that Hilda - and she could speak for herself - would like to see some collaboration between Wikipedia and the NIH, as well as between Wikipedia and every government health organization internationally. Probably the nature of the relationship would be finding a way to disseminate the best health information available through Wikipedia, with the government staff doing their best to help the community get connected to that information. You mentioned conflict of interest because the IP did; I do not feel that this is a major concern in this case, although you are right to look into this. It is my opinion that Hilda's only agenda is to probe the Wikipedia community's interest in doing something, and then if there is a way to collaborate then we try it. It is my opinion that Wikipedia health content must be improved, and the rate of improvement must increase drastically, but no one has a big plan for making this happen. I personally will advocate to take some risks but of course I do not want to increase the work burden on the Wikipedia community by recommending something which could result in more bad content without also attracting a lot more good regular contributors. I would like to explore this template more but I also want to do it in a conservative way. I do feel like it is a duty of Wikipedians to make some general recommendation of where people should seek information. I want to keep a communication channel open with you so that if you have any concerns, I can share them broadly with others. For that reason, I am sending you an email note now. I would be happy to talk with you on wiki or by phone or Skype anytime. I do not want to push any changes; I just want to find a good and safe method to propose and test new ideas. Thanks for your attention. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, to both, it's unfortunate how COI crept into this conversation, as I initially had no idea who she was and no COI concerns. Curiously, based on my first interactions with her at WT:MED, my initial impression was of someone pushing a psych POV typical of what we sometimes see from those who disregard reliable sources and want to advocate. I wonder if she's aware she came across that way, or ... if it was just a matter of I really should not even be reading and trying to post right now because I have significant real-life events demanding my time and attention for the next month. (I tried to archive my talk and take a month break, but Important Stuff Keeps Popping On My Watchlist!) Thank you for the offer to speak further, Blue, and for the considered and thoughtful posts you've made, but my time is seriously compromised right now and I may not be able to take these conversations any further ... I should be more free by September, when I will return to fuller medical editing. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

G'day! Thanks! My first language is English - although some people might question if it's really English that Australians speak! ;) I understood what I was saying, and I could see that people weren't used to considering that perhaps their practice in relation to this was actually in contravention of their practice in other areas: that is, they were advocating undertaking a type of primary research (assessing the quantity of use in the medical literature, which would be research, and measuring the wrong thing), rather than seeing reliable sources that measured exactly what they were interested in. It's the kind of conversation that's not that easy in this medium.

I think everyone has competing interests - it's only a question of what kind are they, can they see when things are in their interests and not the public's/readers'/Wikipedia's, and when do they become a conflict. Yes, I've been a professional editor and researcher for 30 years (for 20 of those years I was also a consumer advocate), and in many different contexts, but none of that in itself constitutes a COI. Indeed, people who do a lot of Wikipedia editing have also become editors quite different from others, even if they're not paid for it. While it would obviously be the kiss of death for WP to expect only professionals to edit, it also makes no sense to think of it as the encyclopedia anyone can edit - as long as they are NOT professional editors. If I were trying to push PubMed onto an unwilling audience, that would be a COI given my day job. But that's not the case. The very reason PubMed and PubMed Health etc exist is to make things accessible. Everything is not of high quality anywhere - but in health, in the English language at least, the likelihood of being reliable and accessible (including into the future, with adequate archiving) is even less on average outside NLM resources.

Yes, people in glass houses should be careful of throwing stones, but that goes for WP too. And when you look at the magnitude of the task WP has before it, for people even to have a 50-50 chance of landing on a good medical page, with a dwindling editor base, I don't think the issue is whether someone like me should be regarded suspiciously or not. Not tapping into the resources that knowledge professionals can bring to the WP isn't compatible with thriving. And the issue isn't, can people like me make a worthwhile contribution to the pages and the way people do things. The question is more, how can those people contribute without damaging the community, and deterring non-professionals. I think that's a very real and important question that we need to grapple with, because that's the most likely harm someone like me could do. That said, from having seen quite a lot of the talk at the dozens of pages I've contributed to so far, it seems to me that putting others down is more a problem from others than professional editors or researchers. (By the way, I have spent more of my life as a volunteer in community organizations than I have working for universities or government agencies - it's always risky to stereotype people.) Hildabast (talk) 16:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Hilda; my apologies for early mistakes in your name. I do not have concerns about COI with PubMed; that was inadvertently introduced here by IP 86. But, once he raised the issue, I do hope the folks involved are aware of the Susan Swedo/PANDAS conflict, as editing there could constitute a COI. That is an aside to this whole conversation, and one that arose inadvertently. The original, more important point of this whole thread was that we shouldn't undertake sweeping changes to long-standing guideline pages based on feedback from two or three editors over two or three days. As long as we all understand that, I think we should all be on the same page now. And references to understanding anyone's posts coming from me should not be taken as an insult, since my own prose is infamously poor :) Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm somewhat relieved by this... My misreading was unfortunate and embarrassing—especially because I suspect that Hildabast hasn't any major relevant COI across the vast majority, at least, of the project's content. But, hey, getting to know one another is good :-) 86.161.251.139 (talk) 17:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

As the old saying goes, if that's the worst thing that happens to you on the internet, you're in good shape! Forget about it :) I think/hope we're all clear here now. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Holidays

Hey Sandy. Enjoy your time off and look forwards to seeing you back more in Sept. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I second that. And apologies for disturbing you here...

I saw that you were, quite reasonably, trying to work out who some of the less familiar talk contributors are, and I feel you deserve some response... Especially perhaps, since contributing to discussions like those as an IP could seem disrespectful to the others.... Not my intention. FYI, I do have some experience of defending MED pages, but am evidently not very good at it... Hence the use of an IP. Also, I hate being maliciously profiled and having my editing history cited against me (eg in connection with some MED page dispute) in some kangaroo court. While editing as an IP I've become curious about what you might call the "IP experience". Being interested in biases, I'm intrigued by the challenge of conveying ideas in a relatively bland way, "on their own terms". I'm happy to say the experience in these conversations has been a heartening one.

Please do enjoy your break! Best wishes, 86.161.251.139 (talk) 18:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

86, I have no problems with your posts as an IP. As I see it, "On the internet, no one knows you're a dog" (or as I often say, "I'm the Queen of Sheba"!), so there is really little difference between an IP and a user name. We should judge an editor by the quality of their edits, and yours are sound! It's unfortunate that so many of us in here are the walking wounded as a result of the Wikipedia experience :) When I first came to Wikipedia (from the Wild Wild West of Usenet) and saw the NPA, sourcing, and Civility policies, I thought this would be a great place to be and where I could do good work without attacks, pettiness, etc. Little did I know Wikipedia would make Usenet look like the good ole days! I'm glad you are still contributing ... and one thing I seriously like about IP contributors is that they can't set up private email ... it bugs the heck outta me when Wiki business is conducted off-Wiki where others can't see the politics and backroom dealing, so kudos on those who contribute constructively as IPS. Best to you, too. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:24, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind response Sandy. Do enjoy you break! 86.161.251.139 (talk) 09:59, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Well. Now that you've seen how I wasted a perfectly good morning, perhaps you will appreciate why I value one good IP over ten useless admins. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:22, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Lol, or sort of (I think you need that break...)

Well, you may be glad to know that, apparently, "There is no robust evidence identified among cross-cultural studies to recommend changes for International Classification of Diseases-11th edition"...

Btw, I was chatting the other day with an editor (one who genuinely does help out at WP:MED!) who finds it useful to take a month completely out every year so to reassure himself that Wikipedia will get along without him. Bon voyage, 86.161.251.139 (talk) 16:29, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

As you can see from my last 15,000 edits, I already took most of the last year-and-a-half off! Which is why I missed several changes at WT:MED. And I'm not actually "on holiday" right now-- just doing Some Very Important real-life stuff through August (meaning I edit when I get breaks, even though I shouldn't be!) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:59, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Open access

Hi Sandy,

Just wanted to apologise if I came across as rude at WT:MED. I hadn't meant to denigrate featured articles, which I know you've put countless hours of excellent work into. I only picked FAs on the grounds that if they don't follow the rule, then the 99.8% of non-FAs in WP:MED probably don't either. It turns out my small random sample only included one FA promoted while you were delegate to the FAD, and the non-compliant link was not present when you promoted the article.

Anyway, I've responded further at WT:MED. Hope you're enjoying your break. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 08:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Adrian; there is no need to apologize, and you did not come across as rude at all! If I've come across as less than clear or rude, I too am sorry-- my time is tight now and I shouldn't even be editing. Anyway, I looked at the info you provided, one thing led to another, and I found myself in a can of worms! I'll get back over there to reply in detail when I have time ... one problem is that we now have a huge percentage of FAs that shouldn't be for various reasons, there are problems thoughout our citation guideline pages, and even our citation discussion at MEDMOS reveals issues! The usual Pandora's box one finds when looking into anything on Wikipedia ... and I don't have time just now for a proper response at WT:MED. Thank you again for the kind note, Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah, all good. There was nothing wrong with your response; it's just I've been told I've come across as rude before, and am perhaps now oversensitive to the possibility. I think the biggest problem with our guideline pages is evident in my list: we just have too damn many. Best, Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 13:56, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Too damn many, that contradict each other, give bad and wrong advice, and don't even explain basics! And little likelihood that anything will ever be done about that, so my next thought was, well, what do we say on MEDMOS? Another can of worms ... Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Off-wiki venture

On the WikiProject Medicine board you said to me, "The role you've taken on here is adding to a budding feeling that this WikiProject is increasingly part of an off-Wiki venture, with editors who are paid for their time valued above volunteers' contributions and concerns, and I don't think that's what you intend." No, I do not intend to contribute to the idea that paid editors' time is worth more than volunteer time. I believe the opposite, in that the Wikipedia community should be served by pay editors.

I do feel that WikiProject Medicine should be increasingly tied to off-Wiki efforts to promote health education. This classroom project which started this discussion is one example of off-Wiki outreach. Covering the entirety of the scope of all health information should not be a task confined only to those few who show up at WikiProject Medicine. Wikipedia is the world's most consulted source of health information and I would like everyone who has any stake in health education - governments, schools, health foundations, and public and global health offices to recognize it as such and plan their future actions accordingly.

Please continue to give me any criticism you have. I appreciate it a lot. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

wellll ... do you understand that you taking on the role of adding a pre-summary after the fact to threads on WP:MED is off-putting? Are you linking to a blog somewhere or something and want your words first?

Do you realize that talk page posts are typically chronological, and that adding your (personal opinion) summary to the top of threads is irregular? Label the threads better if you want (the topic changes sometimes as investigation of the problem evolves), but jumping the line to add your summary is, well, pretentious ... particularly when the threads may start out on one angle and change as information emerges. Certainly, if I had realized at the beginning of discovering these problematic articles that a sysop was behind them, I would have gone straight to him first. That was not the case, and only after several hours of investigation was the connection revealed. Your after-the-fact summaries look accusational.

And do you recognize there may be some different perceptions among those of us who don't get a salary for the effort we volunteer here? Please, put better subheads if you want, but add your comments after others and don't refactor unnecessarily to predispose towards your views. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I just moved the summary to the bottom. Does that satisfy all your concerns? This seems minor to me. Do you object to the fact of a summary, or is this just about the position?

If my writings express accusation then it is not my intent and only my lack of ability to express myself as I wish that I could. My only intent was to make the narrative accessible to more people.

I do not recognize those perceptions which have not been expressed to me. Would you like to share? Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk page threading is typically in chrono order ... it is curious to me that you would add your personal opinion to the top of two threads, twice now ... as in the role of an admin closing topics at ANI. Changing the subject headings is also problematic, as others may have linked to them elsewhere. I'm unclear why you have taken on this role. I don't think you want it to feel to volunteers like paid editors are "in charge" of discussions, able to refactor, open, close, summarize, alter, etc at will. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I took this role because I wanted to make conversations more accessible. What other motivation could possibly exist? I wish that more people would refactor and I have refactored a lot of discussions over the years. Practically no one knows that I am a paid contributor and I hardly feel that anyone perceives that I have a rank or authority here or anywhere else. If you have further ideas about how I can lower the perception of my rank then I would respect any suggestions you have.

Here is the other case you mention - [5]. There were multiple threads all discussing the same topic and I felt that they all should be grouped together. How do you feel about my doing that? My plan going forward will be as follows:

1. Continue to group threads - sorry about breaking links, but I feel that people within a forum take priority over people who visit from other forums. I feel that my practice is in compliance with the goals of Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages.
2. Continue to summarize threads, but not post a summary at the top.

Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Summarize if you want, chrono order is standard. If you want to change thread names, perhaps ask the editor involved? In hindsight, a different thread name was fine, but when I started the discussion I had no idea it was going to end where it did. If I had linked to that thread somewhere, you would invalidate my link. (Which is another reason I use permalinks.) Also, when you earlier grouped threads, you grouped in a discussion of mine that was completely unrelated, so ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

All confirmed - chrono order is standard, I will notify thread-initiating editors if I change their thread names, and I will be more mindful not to group in discussions which ought not be part of the set. Thanks for taking time to help me improve myself. I will pay the favor forward to others. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Busymom101

I am busymom101 and I am a Henderson student who under the direction of my instructor, Mr. Langley, am working on Wikipedia articles. This is all new to me and if I am not doing something right, then I apologize. My teacher has not complained or gave me feedback, so I am winging it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Busymom101 (talk • contribs) 02:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Busymom101; you can ask any questions about Wikipedia here on my talk, and even if I'm not around, someone will probably answer. (Questions related to article content can be put on the talk page of the article; if no one sees them or answers, you might put a note here and someone will look in.) Did your professor give you any of the Wikipedia handouts that explain editing to students? There are many.

Here is some other information that might help:

• You can sign your talk page entries (not your article edits) by entering four tildes ( ~~~~ ) after them.
• Please have a look at WP:ASSIGN; it was written as an introduction for students doing course work on Wikipedia and is a good starting place.
• See also WP:BRD and WP:3RR; if you have added text that has been removed by another editor, you shouldn't continue to add it without discussing on the article talk page.
• Wikipedia has sourcing guidelines that apply to medical and health topics at WP:MEDRS; there are good sources available for the articles your class has been working on, so there is no need to use sources that aren't compliant. If you wonder about reliable sources, you can ask on the article talk page.

Thanks for coming here to inquire! Discussing with other editors will help make your editing more productive and enjoyable. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

FAN Request

Hello! Since you were very helpful a few months ago when I nominated "The Sixth Extinction II: Amor Fati" for FA, I was wondering if you could drop by Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/X-Cops (The X-Files)/archive1 and cast a vote/provide suggestions. Thanks!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Retrolord

Hi! I thought your input might be appreciated at the above discussion, since you're probably more familiar with Mattisse. --Rschen7754 21:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

(TPS) I'll be shocked if that turns out to be Mattisse. Mattisse's whole schtick is about sneaking under the radar until she gets into what she sees as an inner circle of some kind, before self-destructing as spectacularly as she can to try to take as many of her enemies down with her. Attention-grabbing stupidity like this would be totally out of character. Plus, she always tends to target the same group of people, and I don't see any of the plague list in Retrolord's contribution history. – iridescent 23:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Rschen, I think you should go ask Arsten. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:18, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of people who endlessly pursue grudges... Mark Arsten (talk) 01:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't flatter yourself, you were nothing more than a tool ... It was a reference to you knowing more about Mattisse than I do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:37, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Retrolord dubbed me knight, :) another token of the affection with which I am held by the community.... :)

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

SPI: Ironholds's IP harassed Ottava Rima

At my ongoing disappearance/execution, I listed an IP address used by Ironholds, which has been used to harass Ottava Rima and lesser editors.

Can anybody think of other IP and named accounts that could be involved as bad hand accounts?

I've never filed an SPI. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:53, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Erectile dysfunction

Just a heads up that the fight from the porno AfD has moved over to main article. The current text there is a bit risible. Someone not using his real name (talk) 14:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:24, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Bupropion FAR

Hi Sandy - A while ago, you commented on the FAR for Bupropion (WP:Featured article review/Bupropion/archive1). A user has completed quite a bit of work on the article in the meantime. If you have the time, it would be appreciated if you could return to the review and update your comments. Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 21:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Old news finally reported

The Christian Science Monitor breaks story on Ironholds and Sue Gardner

• Murphy, Dan (2013). "In UK, rising chorus of outrage over online misogyny: Recent events in Britain draw more attention to endemic hostility towards women online". Retrieved 1 August 2013. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Ugh. But has the Christian Science Monitor no copyeditors? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Sandy, start getting ready for emails and phone calls from reporters. Start polishing your talking points. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Fortunately, apart from WP-obsessive Murphy, I've not seen us featured in this latest spat of stuff, which is a well-timed silly season promotion. Johnbod (talk) 20:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Cute he is. Persuasive or credible, he isn't. I would guess he is writing there because, well, you know.

(SG, I've not missed any emails from you, just didn't want to email you during the summer saying "right, yeah, I agree, odd though isn't it". More oddities in due course!) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I have ideas ... but then, I'm not allowed to inquire on Wikipedia, so ... let others have fun with that ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

PR

You're needed at Wikipedia:Peer review/Tiruchirappalli/archive2. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 17:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Your free Cochrane account is on its way!

Please fill out this very short form to receive your free access to Cochrane Collaboration's library of medical reviews: Link to form.

If you have any questions, just ask me. Cheers, Ocaasi 13:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Been a month ... not here yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Million Award

		The Million Award
		For your contributions to bring Tourette syndrome (estimated annual readership: 1,009,000) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The Million Award is a new initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content; you can read more about the award and its possible tiers (Quarter Million Award, Half Million Award, and Million Award) at Wikipedia:Million Award. You're also welcome to display this userbox:

This editor won the Million Award for bringing Tourette syndrome to Featured Article status.

As a personal note, I wanted to add that I've wanted to bury any hatchet there may still be between us for some time, and this seems as good a moment as any to do so. I've spent this past week reading a number of historical FA reviews in prepping this award, and it's given me a deep appreciation for all the work you've done to improve the articles that pass through there. I hope you'll accept this as a small token of thanks for both your content contribution and reviewing.

Cheers and all best, -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Greetings

WP:WMF now exists, FYI. Best regards. Biosthmors (talk) 09:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, SandyGeorgia. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 21:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Zad68 21:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Class

I can fill you in on more details. But of course I'm emphasizing MEDRS. =) However, there's a lot the class does that I think can be done better, so I'm looking at the whole picture of the class and the dynamics of everything going on too. So it's a big, slow moving complicated mess at this point, but maybe after tonight it will turn the corner. The professor mentioned that because of my (late) help back in 2012, that the class' output/performance was the best they had seen. So given that we have this much of a head start, and I'm in communication with people, I expect 2013 will improve upon 2012. The professor has been doing this assignment for about 6 or 7 years now. We just need more people like me to find these classrooms, help out, and (sometimes slowly) steer the thing in a better direction. ;-) Anyhow. That's my 2cents. Will be meeting with the TA shortly so feel free to comment here to chat or at the neuroscience WikiProject to document any relevant concerns. For comparison, you might check out User:Ituta/Course page, a course page I've been able to develop with a brand new class from in person support. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 16:46, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I am so glad you are on board! Talk page banners will help, as will pointing them towards PubMed secondary reviews, and why on earth doesn't the prof educate them on WP:MSH and uppercase in titles? I just found a faulty redirect at Twice Exceptional, btw. I will be in and out for another few weeks, but should be fully back soon! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Awesome. The librarian will have another technical session with the students and we can discuss further. The prof has delegated many of the responsibilities (I called him yesterday on his cell phone because I was a bit surprised by some developments) so this one is a tough one to wrangle. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 16:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Keep at it ... good on you :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Checked

I checked but I don't have access. Best. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 16:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much ! Now that my account finally came through (it was my fault, there was a typo in my email address), I am finding, as I suspected, nothing in Cochrane <sigh>, and I need to get the DSM5 and other updates done. I'm on it! (Finally.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I can send you that PDF if you want to email me. Sasata (talk) 16:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, you are a gem, but I've gotten hold of it! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

PS, I am hoping it is the "missing link" I've been waiting for ... that it will allow me to update the entire suite of articles to reflect the new DSM5, while also covering WHO/ICD/European diagnostic categories. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi you may find these useful, Motor Stereotypies which is more for my own understanding of the issue, and a collection put together for a friend Tourettes Syndrome (PubMed is currently having some technical issues info on site). I can not do much more on the DCD article either, but I have a few other pet projects which for me is more about learning. I hope these collections are of some use dolfrog (talk) 16:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Dolfrog ... I have limited journal access. Do you have access to the full text of the Singer 2011 article on Stereotypic movement disorder? When I began writing about TS, there was very little published about SMD, so I had to use Roger Freeman's blog-- that was all that could be found six to ten years ago (and he is such a recognized expert that I wasn't too worried about his self-published blog). I believe the Singer 2011 article could be used now to upgrade the citations at Stereotypic movement disorder, but I do not have that article.

On Tourette's, there is very little published that I don't have, although it is going to take me some time to get through the (lengthy) European practice guidelines, to make sure I've accounted for that and not unintentionally introduced US bias. Once I'm done upgrading to DSM5, and checking/updating the TS articles, I may find time to go back and do more on stereotypies, which I had to do earlier based on Freeman's work only because stereotypies were so frequently misdiagnosed as tics, and that was an ongoing issue of concern in TS diagnoses. Now that the new DSM has officially come out and stated what was once included only in blogs (that is, that many TS diagnoses are incorrect, and are actually stereotypies or autism, so better distinction is needed), the overlap/confusion is easier to deal with. I hope I find time to get to it. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

have a look at Stereotypic movement disorder: easily missed and Motor Stereotypies dolfrog (talk) 17:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Still trying to locate:

• PMID 21496612
• PMID 22064610

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Have you seen PMID 22064610 and Tic disorders: some key issues for DSM-V dolfrog (talk) 18:19, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Freeman, Walkup, Singer and Leckman ... wonderful ... everyone who's anyone ... thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I've got PMID 22064610 as a PDF. Shoot me an email and I'll attach it back. As for how I wound up on your talk page, I saw your name on the list of people expressing their unhappiness at NW's Arb resignation, and was surprised to see you there since you disappeared for a while (at least from the pages I watch). So I clicked your sig and saw this. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:15, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The other one, at least according to the library search engine that I used to get 22064610, says that 21496612 is a chapter in a book, and I can't find a digital version for you. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Will do ... yes, I've been exceedingly busy for over a year, and a new DSM-5 along with new European Guidelines at the same time are making it quite a chore to update the TS suite of articles for this revision after a busy year. I am still surprised at how much it takes me back each time I re-discover how much harder it is to write a medical article to FA standards and keep it there than it is for some other content areas, where cookie cutters can be churned out once a month and then rarely changed ... medical FAs are a labor of love and an ongoing task, requiring constant attention. Taking a year off for real life has a catch-up price! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Tiruchirappalli

Hi, since you commented on the previous FAC, can you post your thoughts on the article's talk page to improve the article. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 06:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

autism

Hi Sandy. I agree about having high standards for material on the autism page. I hope we don't end up in a fight. Sometimes the editors I meet who revert sex-difference material can get really worked up. I hope this isn't one of those times. We both just want the best article, right? Leadwind (talk) 20:28, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry you have encountered past issues with "sex-difference material", but I have no such history, concerns or issues. I do expect text inserted into any (medical) featured article to comply with WP:UNDUE and to meet the sourcing standards at WP:MEDRS, and the criteria at WP:WIAFA. You have made some good suggestions for improvements to the leads, but discussion of other text would best continue on article talk. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Leadwind (talk) 03:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Moving entire section to Talk:Autism; again, please discuss articles on article talk where everyone can participate. [6] [7] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sandy and Leadwind, I have been an observer of the autism article for sometime now, and find it completely out of step with international reseach form the last 5 years or more. And as you are aware I have virtually no copy editing skills. However you may find some of the research papers included the CiteULike Autism library of some help to radically update the article dolfrog (talk) 17:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

We do not disagree that a full rewrite of that article is overdue, and now the situation is even more complicated because autism spectrum should be the more prominent article, per DSM5 (and the autism article frequently mixes the old classic autism with autism spectrum-- so BOTH articles are now a mess). Yes, there are problems ... but loading up the autism article with one researcher's theories (UNDUE) is not the way to solve the issues at that article. I would encourage Leadwind to seek out the most recent, high quality, independent secondary reviews from which a rewrite can be undertaken, and to propose his edits on talk. As things stand now, he has curiously assigned all sorts of motive to edits by others, which is beginning to raise a red flag to me as to why he seems to be attempting to rewrite the article from the POV of one researcher (UNDUE). Picking the work of one researcher, using sources from that researcher, and adding that text to articles creates POV; the way to go is to find the best and most recent reviews, and rewrite from there ... that approach is more likely to result in a balanced article.

PS, just to be clear, I am not saying that Leadwind is intentionally creating POV; I am contrasting, in general terms, the best way to write an article vs. another way that can lead to POV, whether intentional or not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd love to see the article rewritten, and I'm up for doing some of the writing. Sandy, even though I think Simon Baron-Cohen looks like an important voice in contemporary autism research, I won't try to give him and his work more space than they're due. His work should be included (given due weight) but not over-inculded (given undue weight). We both want to see Baron-Cohen and the extreme male brain theory given the right amount of weight, right? It will be nice to have a fresh start. Leadwind (talk) 05:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

From the discussions at Talk:Autism, it seems you aren't yet understanding principles of sourcing on Wikipedia. Perhaps some of the emphasis you want to place on one researcher's work could be used to clean up the messes at mind-blindness and empathizing–systemizing theory (which is a redirect from extreme male brain). At autism, where we have plentiful high quality, secondary, independent, recent reviews, we give due weight to any researcher's work according to our sourcing guidelines. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll take that as a Yes, you do indeed want to see Baron-Cohen and his EMB theory given proper weight (not too much, not too little). Leadwind (talk) 16:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I see PMID 22363193 is being cited on the student sandbox for causes of autism. It isn't entirely a secondary source, as it proposes a new theory in addition to recapping existing ones. I did enjoy this paragraph.

It is generally accepted that most humans used to live in hunter-gatherer societies, in which men fulfilled the role of hunter, and women the role of gatherer. Systemizing may have been important in developing tools and weapons, in hunting, tracking, and trading. Empathizing may have been disadvantageous in situations where rivals had to be eliminated, and in situations where one had to tolerate solitude, while being far away from home for hunting. For women, empathizing may have been more important because of mothering, making new friends (women used to marry into new groups), gossiping, and inferring the thoughts of a possible mate (to discover whether he is willing to invest in offspring). So having an extreme male brain, a condition which we strongly associate with autism, may have had practical advantages given demands of ancestral times. These advantages would have conferred greater reproductive success, thus ensuring the continued existence of this condition.

I thought these evolutionary psychology "just so stories" had been debunked already? What a load of guff. Colin°^Talk 11:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Hard to explain to an entire course with a professor unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies, but it appears it will fall to us because it will hit our watchlists. Ya know. As usual. Just when I have been struggling to get some real work done in here, we are being hit by huge amounts of WP:IDHT across multiple articles, including four FAs. And User:Biosthmors hopes half a dozen editors can keep FAs updated with a few hours work a day. The student edits will be a problem; that they are being encouraged to create UNDUE is another problem. That DSM5 updates are needed everywhere doesn't help. That the Causes article has gotten out of hand since Eubulides left is another ... <sigh>. And would you think an international forum for the advancement of medical sciences by students might be a red flag concerning reliability? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:20, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I feel a need to highlight this for some strange reason: For women ... gossiping, and inferring the thoughts of a possible mate (to discover whether he is willing to invest in offspring). No, we just wanna know if he's good in bed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Case Western course

Thanks for the useful suggestions for the course assignment and students. They've done some, although not all of the suggested site visits. I was stunned to see that one had plagiarized. Fast work on your part! Sanetti (talk) 01:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Mally

Im assuming Eric = Mally, but its a bit confusing to use other names in the thread, particularly when I'm fairly sure Eric is his rl name. Care to elucidate? Gaijin42 (talk) 16:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Eric is indeed my real name, and Eric = Mally; my previous username was Malleus Fatuorum, fully disclosed. Eric Corbett 19:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I eventually stumbled across your previous account, and saw the new username link. I was not meaning to imply anything, just curious why people kept using the name Mally. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, dear ... my talk page got busy, and I missed these posts just as this bloke was pushing dope on me. I so hate the new notification system. Anyway, glad that is clear, sorry for the confusion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

FA quality

Hi. I was just superficially scanning this at Wikipediocracy, where they lambast a couple of FAs. (Don't know if the criticism is warranted.) I've only been through the process once about a year ago, and found it excoriating, chastening and very worthwhile. That was for a fairly demanding medical article. Do you have a view on the the current status of FA review? Generally OK? Curate's egg? (I've been meaning to get involved at FA but keep getting distracted by other stuff.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Please do get involved (help is needed), but do not be guided by current reviewing standards. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks for incorporating the tic-related/Tourettic OCD bits. It's something of a gray area that seems worth mentioning. My mistake about using a case report. I'll work with secondary reviews from now on. I was also wondering about an edit you made regarding "terminology" in the schizophrenia article - aren't psychotic individuals just individuals with psychosis? Cheers. --Humorideas (talk) 10:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Funny thing ... I woulda sworn it was mentioned, but I guess it might have gotten removed during the attempts to shorten the article when it went through FAC (when I probably said too much on the topic!). I'm trying to rework a lot of that suite of articles now to make sure DSM5 is reflected (but got sidetracked by student editing issues at most articles I watchlist), so I may add another sentence or two on that as I work through the entire suite over the next few weeks. If I find a "free full text available" secondary source that discusses the fuzzy line between tics and OCBs, I'll use it instead. It's hard to draw a line on how much comorbidity to include in an overview article that has sub-articles, but that is definitely one that should have been in there. So, thanks for jogging the memory!

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches gives an overview of how to apply WP:MEDRS, in case you haven't seen it.

On the individuals with ... see the last point at Wikipedia:MEDMOS#Careful_language. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Too small a picture

Hi Sandy. The bigger picture you talk about is actually a small snapshot of the general malaise across the entire encyclopedia. Not only is it being felt in the quality articles, but also across RfA and many other places. Editors are disappearing leaving only those who have a good reason to be here. It's not the admins against the content contributors, or Arbcom against the community or anything like that - it's just that the only people left are so steadfast in whatever their beliefs are that they refuse to look at compromise. Double standards were always going to be a problem on a wiki, because some things don't get noticed, other things have a blind eye turned. Is it why people left? In part, yes. I think the main reason people left is because it got too hard to stay. The "easy" articles were done. The interesting articles had too many people fighting your changes.

Eric is his own little problem, his own worst enemy. If he were just complaining about admin abuse, I wouldn't be trying to change things, admin abuse needs to be highlighted. It's the aggravating comments he makes at articles he's worked on that really cause issues. Some people end up at his page to try and resolve the dispute in good faith. Others just turn up to badger him and deserve what they get. It's sorting the two that's the problem, both seem to be treated the same way. Worm^TT(talk) 15:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• Worm That Turned, I respectfully submit that the most recent block, over the Malkin Tower business, suggests that he doesn't always bring it up on himself. Water under the bridge now--the only thing that really remains is another unnecessary block on his log. Drmies (talk) 03:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

(I don't have time to look into the situation at the moment, but...) He certainly doesn't always bring it on himself. I never thought that he did. Doesn't change what I'm trying to acheive. Worm^TT(talk) 08:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I see different problems than you see ... but we do agree it is a general malaise. You see, I think Eric has always been the canary in the coal mine, and since very early on in my Wikicareer I was targeted by an admin cabal, I knew all too well that what happened to him could happen to all of us (we could be painted by one grudge-bearing admin, and that would follow us forever), and I think anyone who has any hope left for this place should pay attention to the real Eric message. It's really no skin off his back if he is chased out of here, and that makes sense to me ... who wants to be part of such a corrupt mess if the corruption isn't addressed? As long as abusive admins are allowed to continue, he will probably continue to point it out and use exactly whatever language he is comfortable with. And when he is finally chased out of here, the number of editors who still have some hope and still do most of the real work in here who will leave with him may surprise. I always knew he was right, but after the last real admin-cabal was busted in a large case that resulted in a desysopping and another warning (largely, an arb told me, on my evidence), I had some hope. I now have first-hand knowledge that what has been done to Eric can be done to anyone in here, no matter how much one has contributed, no matter how abusive, yet those same admins will protect their friends (double standard). Editors like Eric don't need this place. It does need him. I hope folks who still have a chance to make a difference do not miss the forest for the trees. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Let me distill down what Sandy's saying - "It's an encyclopedia, not a social networking site." The aim is to build an encyclopedia - and all other rules, guidelines, etc should be subordinated to the creation of content. For years we've heard about how important it is to flesh out the "big" articles. Why don't you ask Eric about his experiences trying to improve the Information technology article? Or ask me about trying to deal with Middle Ages? Or Sandy dealing with any of the big picture medical articles she works on? Admin's should be supporting those efforts but the stupid idiocy that "admins don't decide content" basically means that the actual people writing the content have to deal with crap piled on crap because the people who logically should be supporting the content creators instead have to play silly games about being neutral on content. INstead editors end up having to spend hours and hours of time trying to deal "civily" and "not bite" when dealing with the most egregious nonsense. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you spoke up, but I'm not sure that is my point, exactly. Yes, it's a Facebook, social-networking problem, but one where admins who can't or won't or are unable to create content align themselves with cabals and apply policy unevenly to protect their friends and promote their own perception of being useful and powerful. Some of the protected also write, so I am not saying content contributors need protection-- that is in fact part of the problem. But heck, if admin cabals are going to favor certain content creators while blocking others for lesser offense, double standard ... it really is all about power, and those who can't create content seem to gain theirs by aligning themselves with different factions and using their block buttons selectively to gain favor. I am far less troubled by Mally's f'ing c's than I am by certain groups who have had an extremely negative net effect on all content review processes by using intimidation to silence anyone who correctly, neutrally and impersonally weight in on content issues. Yet the same admins who cook up false blocks for anyone who disagrees with that group defends outrageously uncivilized behavior in others because they don't use f'ing c's. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Oddly enough, Worm's indefinite was a less bad block than Fram's three-month block. "Indefinite" means "until you say x and really mean it"; "three months" means "fuck off for three months". Anyway. Interesting how no one has remarked on that now-closed AN thread that if a block is overturned then it was a bad block, which should be reason #1 for maybe not making that kind of block in that kind of situation in the first place. Now, Worm, go ahead and define/refine the circumstances of "that" and "that", let's define the fuck out of it until nothing is left, but at some point someone is going to have to admit that the blocks on Eric helped nothing and no one, and that they only increased his block log and the temperature all around, and made it worse for him next time. Worm, can you get someone from high-up, like your level of our meritocracy, to acknowledge that? My proposal basically boils down to "in certain situations blocks are not helpful". I still think you should have unblocked him, if only to see what would happen. Oh I'm tired of it. Sandy, I need a hug. You know that I dressed up like a mountain climber for Halloween when we went trick-or-treating? and that everyone immediately spotted my "climber pants" as pajamas? Drmies (talk) 01:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm still trying to come to grips with how Worm can be up in arms (no matter what he says, he is) about Mally, yet he wanted to keep Merridew around. I mean, how do we define harmful editing anyway? I also think anyone who thinks/says "the easy articles are done" is lost in space as far as content building goes and what challenges we face in everyday editing ... we are so so so far away from having basic, correct content in most medical/psych articles that I just shudder every time I hear that meme; it displays a real lack of knowledge about just what content contributors actually do in here. Oh, and speaking of Merridew and his fanbase, the business that you mention of overturning blocks doesn't solve this dilemma any more than invoking INVOLVED does-- remember, Arsten was quick to remove his bogus block from my log with a faulty summary of why it was removed, which conveniently stays on record, and there is no doubt in my mind he knew just what he was doing. (Well, d'oh! If the block had stayed and gone to ANI and been overturned by an uninvolved admin, Arsten wouldn't have been able to lodge a false summary.)

I'm sorry about your trick-or-treat night, and hugs across the miles! If you woulda yodeled, they woulda been looking at your mouth instead of your pants, which is where folks look first on men anyway (hope that made your climber pants smile). Happy Halloween and tutti i santi, too! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Sandy, I am simply not familiar enough with the Merridew case, and reading up on that is too much. I agree with you on the block logging. I didn't know this about the mouth: Mrs. Drmies took a picture and the only thing that I notice is my less than svelte figure, accentuated by the climbing harness and the rope. I did get a text from Mrs. Drmies tonight that a stash of candy was discovered under the bed of Rosie, the 4-year old demon (who was the most adorable cat last night). I assure you, I NEVER did that as a kid, and candy is not responsible for my figure--more adult vices are, and a particular Dutchism: I can't say no to french fries. And good beer. Thanks for your note, and may bygones really be bygones, someday. Drmies (talk) 03:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

ha, reading up on Merridew would be a full-time job! You are lucky the candy was under the bed and the womenfolk will eat part of it; my better half went off for his annual boys' weekend in the woods, leaving *me* alone with all the leftover candy! How's that work, anyway? I clean up trash medical articles on Wikipedia while he gets to commune with nature and pee in the trees? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, you can go pee in the yard--one of the greatest joys of homeownership. My girls do it too, standing up. Better on the grass than in the pool! By the time little Liam gets to make mighty streams in the flower bed I'm going to be real jealous. Enjoy your weekend alone; absence makes the heart grow fonder. Drmies (talk) 04:15, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure the golfers would love that picture :/ :/ G'night! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:17, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I've only got a few minutes this morning and some other stuff to sort out, but I will come back to reply here as soon as I can. Please do accept my apologies for the annoying absence. Worm^TT(talk) 08:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I know, stalking. Drmies Do you want to draft something new re your original blocking/civilty proposal? There was some good addirional stuff that came out of that thread. "Definition of an established editor" was just a straw man. We need a place where we can discuss a draft, maybe six-seven eds contributing. I would be happy for you to use my talk page for a thread. This is not ready for the boards but we might have a coherent propsal on admin procedure modification, and the idea of uninvolved admins being used before blocks imposed. Also block logs should not be cited or linked in discussions and that old blocks should be subject to rehearings if consensus asks for it. Lots of other stuff. You colleagues are probably more aware of some gross breaches of admin behaviour by a small percentage in the past. I think yearly reelections of admins who have not declared themselves open to recall should be thought about too. Finally the challenge administrator tag should be created. This would freeze any further crap and force it to the boards before blocks are chucked around. Cheers all Irondome (talk) 05:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The last 24 hours have convinced me this is unlikely to go anywhere unless there are a whole lot of changes from a whole lot of people, and even then, it will take a whole lot of time. I'm available to help when I see something constructive, which doesn't appear likely at this juncture. I resigned as FAC delegate two years ago so I could return to working on medical articles, and in those two years, admin abuse has gotten worse, the effect of student edits on medical articles has gotten worse, and FA quality has declined. Unless there's a whole lot of sudden change in here, I can make a difference in only one of those three areas, and maybe not even that, but I'm not going to tilt at windmills on a dying website. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Well we can maybe knock something together. WP will only die if we make that decision, based on our remaining WP Good faith being fatally eroded. Cheers Irondome (talk) 06:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is going to go the way it's going regardless of what a few, or even many, of us do or don't do in here ... and most of what could be tried to resolve the many governance problems has already been suggested in one of the many fruitless discussions on any topic you can think of. These discussions about what to do about abusive admins really only serve to elevate them to some position they occupy only in their imaginations, compensating for some or another real-life social deficit. So go write about something that interests you, or not, but don't tilt at windmills! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Worm That Turned, no need to apologize-- we're all swamped in here! I am off for the day, but my (hopefully final) conclusion here is that this place is a bigger mess by the day, and I (at least) need to prioritize my efforts. We have abusive admins, we have abusive editors and cabals protected by abusive admins, we have declining reviews at FAC such that I am now often dismayed to find problems in TFAs as big as the glaring problems often found in DYKs, we have massive problems caused by student editing in addition to the ongoing problems of enforcing WP:MEDRS in medical articles and the need to massively update numerous articles and entire suites of articles to reflect the new DSM5, and it's just not possible to address all of it. I do not think that we have a snowball's chance in hell of dealing with abusive admins, so until and unless someone comes up with a constructive approach, I am going to just ignore the idiots and hope that I can at least make a dent in cleaning up medical articles and occasionally find time to deal with some of our worst FAs. In other words, I hope I'm done with this topic for now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Olive branch

We clashed once in the past over citation style in Callous and unemotional traits, but I have made a best effort here and here to replace primary with secondary sources. Please note that I am a medicinal chemist and not psychologist so there is a limit to what I can do to improve the sourcing of this article. With respect to formatting style, I was trying to find a compromise that was acceptable to everyone. Furthermore I do strongly prefer the concise Diberri/Vancouver citation style and that is why I am trying my best to get it running again. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 19:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I always enjoy getting olive branches from editors I don't recall ever having "clashed" with :) Looking back, I see that article was one of those student-edited projects where Wikipedia was left with a huge cleanup task, and it looks like you are still on it, over a year later <sigh>. Thank you so much for working to fix Diberri ... I used to know lots of folks in here who would gladly and quickly jump in to help you, but I'm afraid they've all given up or been chased off, and there is no one I can suggest who might help. If you do get it going, I will be thrilled! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

It now works! At least "PubMed ID" and "PubMed Central ID" searches now work, there are problems with url and isbn and the rest). The link is here: citation-template-filling. I will try to get the rest of the template filling tool to work properly over the next few days. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 15:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

OH grand-- that is just about the best news in a very long time !!!! I will add it to my user page, and please let me know when you are done, done, done. This is great! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)