Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:15, 12 November 2013

Archives

2006 · 2007 · 2008 · 2009 · 2010 · 2011 · 2012 · 2013–2015 · 2016–2017 · 2018 · 2019 · 2020 · FA archive sorting · 2021 · 2022 · 2023 Jan–Mar (DCGAR) · 2023 Apr–Aug · 2023 Aug–Dec · 2023 Seasons greetings · 2024 · 2025

I prefer to keep conversations together and usually respond on my talk page, so watch the page for my reply.

To leave me a message, click here.

Poor Man's Talk Back

ANI diff to original incident.

Followup for @Neutralhomer: ... this discussion shows what happens when one tries to discuss anything with this editor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I replied to you post here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:26, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Neutralhomer, your offer to meatpuppet for Gerda in the Infobox wars is yet another indication that the arb case is either not understood or not taken seriously-- the number of editors colluding on the infobox situation was the basis of the problem to begin with, that led to the arbcase. (That personal attacks of that nature are becoming the norm, not dealt with anywhere, is no longer surprising.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:43, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

It has been taken to ArbCom for clarification and personally, I can't see how a user adding an infobox hurts anyone. It seems silly to prevent someone from adding something constructive (and infoboxes are constructive) to any Misplaced Pages page. It seems even sillier to prevent anyone from adding infoboxes for that editor. Regardless of what ArbCom says, it seems like this is a way to prevent an established and well-respected editor from editing.

I will await ArbCom's ruling on this one and proceed according to that. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Again, still, you don't seem to be aware of or acknowledge the disruption caused to Misplaced Pages by editors colluding on technical issues. "I can't see how a user adding an infobox hurts anyone" indicates you may not be familiar with the case, or the issue that more editing by proxy is not what those involved in that case need. What they need is to curtail their attacks on those who disagree with them on the usefulness of infoboxes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:59, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Adding an infobox to a page is an "attack"?! What?! Explain to me how you came up with that theory. Are we now restricting people we disagree with? I don't agree with you, let's put some restrictions on you and vice versa? It's an infobox...come on! - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

The attack was by Montanabw on someone pointing out an infobox issue: this is characteristic of what has gone on throughout that case. Please focus: I don't really have time to bring you up to speed on an old case. I do have time to point out to you that suggesting that I will wade into that mess is not sound ... one would think admins would deal with the situation without more need for more editors to be drawn into the imbroglio and factions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, so you won't give me the short version of this "case", but you will tell me that I shouldn't take up this fight. That's the kind of answer that makes me want to. An infobox is not an attack, it is not a faction and it is not anything one should be restricted over. You have obviously forgotten why you are here, you are here to edit an encyclopedia, not put restrictions on people you clearly disagree with. You are not the Misplaced Pages Police Department, you are an editor. If you think you are anything more than that, please consult the "log out" link above. None of us should discourage an editor from expanding an article, as you are, over something one doesn't have the time to explain. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:43, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind taking the time to walk you through the case and the history if you would first read what is already on the page. Unless you are being deliberately obtuse, the attack is not hard to find. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Neutralhomer, please read through all of the pages associated with Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes, to see what the fuss is about. Adding infoboxes is not an attack (and Sandy never said it was), but there are factions associated with adding/removing infoboxes, and it is the kind of thing several people were restricted over. A lot of people think that adding/removing infoboxes is a really big deal, and Gerda was one of several people who gained editing restrictions when the issue was taken before ArbCom. This is not Sandy unilaterally imposing editing restrictions, or even several editors imposing them - it is a major issue that was taken before ArbCom that has resulted multiple ArbCom-enforced editing restrictions. You may not find it a big deal to add an infobox, but a lot of people do. I hope this clears some things up. Dana boomer (talk) 00:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Dana! I was beginning to wonder if I was speaking Spanish :) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

@Dana: TL;DR, gimme the short version.

@Sandy: You were speaking, what I like to call, "round-about English". English that goes around in circles and doesn't really make a point, but uses big words. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Seriously? I gave you the short version above. So let me try again, with little words and short sentences. Some people like infoboxes. Some don't. They fight. They went to ArbCom. ArbCom told a bunch of people to knock it off. Including Gerda. </end of short sentences> Now, for some advice: if you want to get involved in the infobox issue, I suggest you get used to reading long pages, and drop TL;DR from your vocabulary. Dana boomer (talk) 01:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, seriously. ArbCom discussions all meld into one after awhile, I like short versions. Still doesn't explain why people don't like infoboxes and how that prevents someone from editing/expanding an article....or editing period in some cases.

I'll drop TL;DR from my vocabulary when you drop the attitude. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

If it was simple and able to be explained in a sentence, a paragraph, even a computer screen's-worth of text, it wouldn't be at ArbCom. To understand why some people/projects don't like infoboxes, you have to read their arguments - it has to do with appearance, necessity, breaking complicated ideas into little (sometimes oversimplified) chunks, etc. ArbCom doesn't rule on content though, they rule on conduct. And they ruled that several editors, including Gerda, had acted in such a way (tendentious editing, editing against consensus, WP:IDHT, etc.) as to necessitate sanctions. In Gerda's case, this included an injunction against adding infoboxes to any article she hadn't created. Also, per ArbCom policy, if an editor is restricted from doing something, other editors are prohibited for doing that something for them, as is currently being explained at the ArbCom clarifications page. But again, this whole paragraph that I have just written is way too simplistic (and I'm sure I'm going to hear about it from people who participated in the case). As I said above, if you want to understand disputes that end up at ArbCom, you're going to need to be able to read and digest long pages, because simple disputes that can be easily explained in non-TLDR fashion don't end up at ArbCom. And I would have seriously thought that an experienced editor such as yourself would not have to have this explained to him, several times, by several editors. Dana boomer (talk) 01:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

One, I like bite-sized bits of information.

Two, I think ArbCom is waaay too full of themselves, always have, and they all have forgotten why they are here.

Three, anything can be explained in non-TLDR fashion if you take the time.

Four, when an infobox causes an ArbCom investigation, people are taking themselves waaay too seriously and have forgotten why they are here.

Five, I have Aspergers (and Dyslexic), I lose interest in something quickly if not explained fast (hence the bite-sized bits of information).

Six, stupid decisions by bureaucracy (like in DC) normally have to be explained several times, so that even the most experienced people (like in DC) can understand it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, that does clarify why you'd perceive infoboxes as an unalloyed good. If you want some background, User:Geogre/Templates is well-balanced but you may find it a bit long; Misplaced Pages:Disinfoboxes is more easily read but also more polemical. Like most ARBCOM decisions, this isn't really "about" infoboxes (or dashes-versus-hyphens, or whatever triviality you like); it's about people's behavior making use of them. Gerda's behavior during the case made it clear that she was going to continue making and using infoboxes in ways that upset other productive editors, to the maximum extent possible without breaking the letter of the rules. It's a shame that these constraints hinder her editing: she's a talented and productive editor. But she would not be laboring under an onerous external restraint if she had shown internal restraint or better judgment. Choess (talk) 15:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom cases are hardly ever about what they appear on the face of it to be about, but that's by the by. Why do some people get so agitated about infoboxes? Some infoboxes are arguably useful and others are arguably a blot on the landscape. Pigsonthewing has much to answer for here, with his empty rhetoric about metadata. Eric Corbett 16:13, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, not intending to throw too many of the aforementioned "big words" at Homer, but the entire infoboxes case was just a proxy for collusion among a group of like-minded editors (that is, all about cabalism, never really even about infoboxes).

In the name of "infoboxes", one group of editors who were roughly (but not exclusively) aligned around technical issues and around returning users breaching cleanstart and various socks disrupting FA pages, has been allowed to indiscriminately block, attack and insult their "perceived" "enemies"; chase off multiple productive editors, both those building content and those also engaged in technical editing; impose technical preferences well beyond the infobox issue; apply the same admin double standards that Malleus thought he was fighting against for years in ways that they seemed to think would silence their "perceived" "enemies" (and in several cases has), choosing to ignore personalization, battleground, and personal attacks among their own; create battlegrounds not only in content editing areas like infoboxes, but also on Misplaced Pages-space pages, in content review processes, and on dispute resolution pages; work together to preserve POV in articles; and .... well, the list goes on ... and the arbs didn't even get to address most of this, but not surprisingly, the signs of the extent of these issues and the editors involved are showing themselves since the case closed. As always, it is unlikely that the arbs were not aware of all that was going on-- but no one presented all the evidence.

So, for Neutralhomer, although you are not the first (and won't likely be the last) to offer to or to actually act as a proxy in the broader issues surrounding the infobox case, I hope you now understand why such conduct is viewed by the arbs as disruptive, and actually has been and remains a factor in battleground conduct based on factionalism (to wit, the attack which led to this discussion). Re Choess's comments about Gerda, I suspect that what got her noticed by the arbs, although many involved went undetected, is a never-ending defense (from a well-established editor) that began to sound one time too many like "I don't know nothin' 'bout birthin' babies". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

As I said, ArbCom cases are hardly ever about what they appear to be about. Eric Corbett

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!

Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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(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(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 Misplaced Pages 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(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)

Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Boo

I saw that , even if that Mad Scientist bloke decided to delete it in some sort of fake edit conflict - I think he must fancy you, and was being protective in case I was stepping on his turf ...

Thanks.

I remember once saying about you "she speaks sense", and I think I said it to jc37, can't remember - but I'll settle for being "liked" - that's cool. Begoon  00:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, God, I suppose I have to put - "this was a joke and I am happily married" - cos I am, and forgot it was wikipedia for a second... See you can all stop typing that now... Begoon  00:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

That was some seriously funny shi ... stuff! Don't let the kids get you down! Perhaps I'm speaking more sense than some folks can digest. Boo, too, to you two (you and the wife!) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

3 - we have a 10 year old - and she's prettier than you - no, hang on, she's prettier than me - that was it... Begoon  00:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Awwwww, that's sweet. I won't beg to disagree ... on your count! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but my ten-year old is prettier than all you people! _{No smiley face cause I'm very serious.} Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey Christine - how's it wiggling? I don't think we spoke for ages. We did once, but I'm instantly forgettable, so you're forgiven in advance. We're both right, obviously, since every parent's 10 year old is prettier than every other 10 year old. Mine is prettier than yours, and yours is prettier than mine. There's nothing mutually exclusive about that, and I have the Venn diagrams to prove it (well, if I don't I can draw them - I do that). Begoon  16:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

No B, I remember you kinda-sorta. I'm sure you helped me in some way; I tend to ask for lots of stuff around here. Obviously, about my favorite band. I'm good, busy as heck. I survived upheavals with two of my niches: the afore-mentioned band and controversy where there shouldn't be any. And I didn't win the Wiki-Cup, didn't even get into the finals, gursh-durn it! Re: our 10-year olds: I may not have Venn diagrams (I am not a math person), but have the pictures and the videos to prove my position! So there! _{Still not using those smiley-faces.} Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

_{Still not using those smiley-faces.} - nor I - they suck. Impressive you could find controversy (or maybe it found you) on an Elmo puppeteer article, though. This truly is the ultimate cosmopolitan hobby, with bonus, free, bizarreness, isn't it? Begoon  16:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I actually use them all the time, I was being ironic. ;) Yes, I never thought that I'd have to spend time dealing with something like that, since the articles I work on tend to be drama-free. Compared to others' experience, I had it easy. I'm still resentful towards Clash, though, and not only because of the hassle it caused on his article. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of the civility police ... there's never a good man around when you need one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Wow. And sadly, that's just your ordinary day around here. I don't think you and I and all our friends will ever clean that up. But here's the "good" thing - I don't think we'll stop trying either... (you'd have stopped long before me if that was gonna happen) Begoon  01:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

And what happened to the secund and thurd times? Inquiring minds want to no... Begoon  01:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make a mule drink? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, the Forth bridge is so long it takes lots of blokes lots of days to paint it - but that seems like an awfully long and elaburat way to take the piss out of a speling misstake, so I wish you hadn't done it really - it seems beneath you. Begoon  01:25, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I didn't mean to misspell ass. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:45, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

See, now you made me laugh out loud today - so we're even. Imagine a world where... (never mind) Begoon  01:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Now, where was I ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi II

I think you may have misinterpreted me on my advocacy of WP:Involved. I merely echoed an earlier thought by another upthread. It is no solution, and is ridden with holes. I fully see the huge magnitude and systemic issues with some of the admin corp in terms of their unreliability and bias. Maybe they were elected early, things were different, I am unsure. But there is a small disruptive group of loose cannons, who cause the poo to hit the fan by COI and crap judgement/bullying/favouritism. Please check out my earlier, original proposals which are quite radical. It was shut down in indecent haste, or is that just me? Cheers Irondome (talk) 01:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Not to worry ... but there is more than a "small group" and "unreliability and bias" are more benign than what really goes on. Just registering the point that there are plenty of ways to get around INVOLVED and get away with it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

No worries. It looks like some productive further drafts may come out of that. See you around Irondome (talk) 20:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Autism 2

Hi Sandy, I am not particularly emotionally tied to the topic, but what struck me as incorrect materially was the following: Autism has a strong genetic basis, although the genetics of autism are complex and it is unclear whether ASD is explained more by rare mutations, or by rare combinations of common genetic variants. I check the reference and the most recent citation was from 2007 and much more information was draw from earlier than 2007. If you check the Mayo Clinic or another other reputable medical source, discredits this sentence. For instance check http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/autism/DS00348/DSECTION=causes or recent research http://www.health.harvard.edu/books/the-autism-revolution. It is misleading to write there is a strong genetic basis. The truth is the cause is unknown. Further under controversies, it would be more up-to-date to state there is actually quite a bit of consensus around environmental causes. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=autism-rise-driven-by-environment. and of course you could cite the Lancet for the vaccines.

GMO should be included in the suggested causes. The correlation is quite convincing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrenchFrench99 (talk • contribs) 01:52, November 1, 2013 (UTC)

Hi French ... this post would be better placed at Talk:Autism, so I will copy it to there so others can respond and you can continue discussion there, but a) Mayo is not a high quality source (and in the case of autism, or several other conditions, they aren't even a good source), and b) see WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOT (news) on "recent" news, and c) see WP:MEDRS on the types of sources we use. The Mayo text is quite dumbed down, and not really at odds with our text. And "The Autism Revolution" isn't a source I would advocate for over peer-reviewed high-quality journal articles. Also, you can sign your posts by entering four tildes ( ~~~~ ) after them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive

I'm not trying to be disruptive. Sorry for creating harm OCD. I thought I would be able to find a reliable source. I will try to find a reliable source for Didi Beck.— Preceding unsigned comment added by OnBeyondZebrax (talk • contribs) 23:13, November 1, 2013 (UTC)

Core Contest and core topics

Following on from the note at Talk:Sea: the contest is Misplaced Pages:The Core Contest. To be fair, there is a history to this (I only know a small part of it). Cas and others (including me) tried to start something at Science which failed when people realised the scale of the task. I tried something once at physical chemistry (userspace notes here). I'm full of admiration for people that actually go several steps further and manage to do something (look at what the article on sea looked like previously). What may be needed is to learn from the different approaches taken (it would be possible to talk all day about this), the one taken here, the one at Middle Ages, the approach taken at WikiProject Chemistry where the elements articles are being steadily brought up to a consistently high level, and so on. To switch to military history, World War I is an article that someone may try to bring up to FA level given the upcoming centenary, but as people are still debating the underlying causes of that war (and the already immense literature on it is being added to continuously) that may not be easy. I don't know what the approach is in medical articles, but what would by a typical core topic article and its sub-articles and where do people start at organising efforts to raise standards on core topics? Carcharoth (talk) 19:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know, most of the medical FAs rely on sub-articles that align with the MEDMOS structure. The length of sea-- with no clear inclusion criteria, and a lead that is jarring and rambling all over the place with no paragraph structure I can follow-- seems to be part of the problem, and I didn't find any evidence in talk (may have missed it) that anyone actually thought about the structure before tacking the article. In medicine, we have structure guidelines, I know film does, other areas do, but maybe one was missing in the development of Sea. The FAC makes it look like the blind were leading the blind in terms of what to add to the article, and it was done ad-hoc (which looks like cheerleading for the sake of the reward culture) as the FAC unfolded. One major medical topic that is too long is major depressive disorder, and that leads to problems (content, maintenance), but at least there is a clear structure. If you want an example of a core topic in medicine, influenza is an FA on a major topic, has about 8,000 words, follows the MEDMOS structure, and relies on sub-articles. Many editors spent many years developing the guidelines (structure, sourcing, manual of style, etc) for health topics, and maybe more projects could do similar ... I don't know if that would help the issues at Sea, because some of the problems are beyond structure (prose, and that sea v. ocean thing is just one example that the FAC review was not thorough-- that link is in the first line of the article!!!) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:14, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I find many of of these so-called core topics to be ridiculous. If I want to know what a house is, for instance, I'll look in a dictionary. Eric Corbett 20:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

That is just from the "official" list of years ago, which no one takes any notice of (except you really). The Core Contest takes a very flexible approach, but looks for articles that are in some way important subjects, and have high views - you know them when you see them. See the discussion/judging pages on past entriesJohnbod (talk) 21:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all the feedback guys, but I am determined to get back to editing medical articles, and I'm pretty sure that diving into pages of another program like Wikicup, and exploring the effect these programs have on FA quality, will depress me so much I may quit :)  :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:05, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't touch Wikicup with a bargepole, but I think the Core Contest is excellent - if only it were bigger. Sea may have issues as an FA (which came after the Core Contest), but the improvement during the contest was massive. Johnbod (talk) 02:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I see ... it sounds like then that the issues at FAC are separate from whatever the Contest is about. But did it end up with cheerleaders at FAC, who were soft on review, because of the Core contest? We've seen that before in group projects and contests ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I didn't realize it was also in the Wikicup, & the FA counted for that. The review was pretty long (6 weeks also) with just about everyone raising lots of points. As previously the scope issue was raised - it may be an issue of "too many cooks" here. I don't see a Core posse - there aren't really enough people. Most look like the FAC regulars. Johnbod (talk) 12:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what you've been drinking Johnbod, but whatever it is I'd like a pint of it. The Wikicup scoring rules state quite clearly that "Any article on the vital level 3 list is eligible for double points". Eric Corbett 03:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, as I say I never look at that - how often does that rule get used I wonder? Relatively few easy points there, at least at DYK and FA. GA is something else I wouldn't know about. I did much of Romanticism up for the Core Contest (1.7 million views pa I think, and not something I'd recommend looking up in a dictionary) and it was a lot of work (having been a complete disgrace before). Johnbod (talk) 12:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Removing "pathodysmorphia" from anorexia nervosa, BDD and alexithymia pages

Dear Sandy Georgia,

There is good neurobiological to suggest (prompting more research in this area) that this new term can be linked to anorexia nervosa, BDD and alexithymia. I am happy to agree that perhaps this new term should not be introduced in a prominent position on these other pages. However, I respectfully request that I can be allowed to add a link to my pathodysmorphia page in a less prominent position on these other pages?

I look forward to hearing from you,

Regards,

Samantha

— Preceding unsigned comment added by DrSamanthaBrooks (talk • contribs) 20:27, November 3, 2013 (UTC)

Autism and Employment

Sandy, I will check out the policies to which you refer on citations and am happy to fix them myself. I was under the impression that references should follow the style on the page WP:CITEVAR), which is not consistent on the autism article, so I made sure I had sufficient information for others to check the reference.Benutzer41 (talk) 23:54, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I apologize Sandy for your unnecessary extra work -didn't realize. Nikpapag (talk) 14:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Vcite and reference tool

I will gladly follow vcite, here's hoping that will be a standard not challenged in other articles. Can you help me get that tool you mentioned? When I went here https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Diberri/Template_filler, I followed links to a dead end, 500 error. I could really use a tool to speed up referencing. Thanks. Benutzer41 (talk) 22:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Re: AFD

Happy to come and have a chat! It's not policy so much as convention and logic. Yes, those are the five possible AFD outcomes but the only one that should motivate you to nominate something for deletion is "delete" *. If you wanted to keep the article, you wouldn't nominate it. If you wanted to merge the article, you would started a {{merge}} discussion. If you wanted to redirect the article you could simply do so either boldly or after a talk page discussion. Thus it follows that you are only nominating something for deletion if you want to see it deleted (and nominations that propose something other than deletion can be, and often are, speedy closed). There is no reason, then, to add an additional !vote reinforcing your opinion that the article should be deleted. Other editors can suggest merger or redirection as alternatives to deletion (though they aren't really).

*Transwiki is rarer and more complicated - it is theoretically an option but is only really applied where a fan wiki (like Wookiepedia) exists.

Striking duplicate votes is just something AFD regulars do to make it easier for admins to consider discussions and for the AFD bots to collect statistics. But if you feel strongly that !voting again would add something to the discussion, I certainly won't edit-war with you. Stalwart111 22:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! No, not at all worried about the struck !vote-- I just struggle to understand AFD. User:Stalwart111, I'm still not sure if that article is a candidate for transwiki to Wiktionary? It's basically just a definition now. Thanks again for the help, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey, even "AFD regulars" (and I'd consider myself among their number) struggle to understand AFD sometimes. I'm not familiar with Wiktionary at all, but I can't imagine they'd allow made up words there either. That's effectively what this is without proper verification beyond what the creator has said about the term. Isn't it?

By the way, I was prompted to add a note to the article creator's talk page. Any more of that and we'd be in WP:IDHT/WP:NOTHERE territory. Stalwart111 00:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

TOC limiting on WTMED

Hi Sandy,

You changed the TOC limit in this edit with the edit summary: "Really?"

This is unhelpful as you neither provided a reason for the change nor adequately described your edit in the edit summary. It took me a while to figure out who made this change. If you have a reason to alter the TOC limit, please discuss in the section: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Scrolly_box_for_TOC (which in all fairness is not particularly well described either). The rationale is to restrict the size of the page when loaded, it is getting out of hand because of the traffic. In a small way, I think this limit helps with this problem. Level 3 headings are not required for quick navigation since none of the level 3 headings are widely separated from their parent level 2 headings. Many thanks, Lesion (talk) 01:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

I, JethroBT 00:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

MOBA Dedham

I can't tell you how devastated I was, after moving to Dedham, only to find that this branch of the Museum of Bad Art has closed. Woe is me, and whoa said I. Maybe if I move to Texas they'll raze all that Ima Hogg stuff.  :-(Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

OH, dear, you are supposed to come here with GOOD news, dontchaknow? I suspect that the Ima stuff will outlast us all ... don't mess with Texas, and all that ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, Dedham is otherwise very nice. It's kind of like Iceland (named to deter people from streaming into a wonderful place). Don't tell!  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:35, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Look at it this way ... you can lay claim to the third World Series championship for the Red Sox in recent years ... and pay $2,000 to go to a ballgame! Well, the last time I was in that neck of the woods, there was a bear in the front yard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:38, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I happened to walk into a bar during Game 3, bottom of the ninth. I figured it would be good to cheer for the Red Sox, so I started cheering for the guys wearing the most red. Turns out I was cheering for a Cardinal! Ouch.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Silly goose, you were supposed to cheer for the facial hair! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah, next time.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Xyn1

The more I look, the worse it is. I am too lazy to start the process, but if you decide to take him to one of the boards, ping me. What an utter waste of time. <sigh> Abecedare (talk) 04:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Abecedare Ha! Thanks for the help. But that scenario is commonplace; I dropped it at BLPN in exasperation because if I dealt with every editor disrupting content in the medical area, I'd be doing that full time. Oh, wait ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Save diff: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Electro convulsive therapy requires a rewrite

I absolutely don't buy the rationale to revert my edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Electroconvulsive_therapy&curid=44093&diff=581050055&oldid=581035074 . The article badly requires a re-edit. The efficacy of the procedure has been heavily exaggerated. Perhaps expert opinions favour ECT in rare cases but this goes along with disfavour of ECT relating to the general public. There certainly is some scope to highlight the true effect sizes of ECT. The sine-wave and bifrontal electrode placement, argument is extremely strong. This is no original research. It is taken from retrograde amnesia article. It should be kept in mind that this article is targeting the uninitiated. They are completely clueless that most meta studies find ECT effect sizes around 50 percent. Its proper for the article to be biased against ECT. Xyn1 (talk) 15:22, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Its better if you edit minor parts of my edit. Xyn1 (talk) 15:24, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I think I've spent enough time this week cleaning up after you, and considering the number of warnings and issues removed from your talk page over quite a number of years now, and that you have introduced POV, BLP vios, or other policy violations into numerous articles now at AFD, you should begin to follow Misplaced Pages policy and guideline, and not expect other editors to clean up after you. In other words, start doing it right yourself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I already provided my rationale for keeping lower standards for non-anglo sphere articles. The problem with POV is that I do not believe there is such a thing as neutrality. The people who acknowledge their edits are not neutral tend to self select themselves into openly disclosing their edits are biased and/or not edit complex topics such as this. And the people who do believe in pseudo-neutrality tend to self select themselves to openly make edits which others might deem biased. It's always the one who openly admits her edits are (mildly) biased that tend to get reprimanded compared to the pseudo-neutrality folk's edits which are more biased than the former. Relating to this article, is only the intro that is POV? or the body as well? If its the former, then I will argue that the earlier version's intro also had a tinge of bias. It mentioned it was a 'standard' practice, although, another editor provided citations as to why it was controversial in the talk page. (I believe pro-ECT folks, who are better organised, added that in). The second point is that the entire article had a certain essay tinge. (Although I believe that tinge is okay in low-trafficked non-anglo articles) In this case, it goes overboard, you can see my edit diff so see the kind of wordings they used. The level of manipulation is intense. Xyn1 (talk) 16:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Three editors now (myself, Anythingyouwant and Abecedare) have explained here the problems with your rationale. We don't lower standards depending on the country. If you do not believe in the core policies that govern Misplaced Pages, I would not be surprised to find you won't last long here. Yes, we all have a POV; that doesn't mean we can't edit according to policy. If you plan to edit medical articles, please understand the correct use of secondary reviews, per our medical sourcing guidelines. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe in WP's core policies, in fact I think some are positively childish, and I'm still here. But I do try not to let that bleed into article content, which is the point here I think. Eric Corbett 19:28, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

@Xyn1: I find your repeated claim/excuse that we must adopt "lower standards for non-anglo sphere articles" to be indefensible and frankly, risible (reminds me of GWB's line about "soft bigotry of low expectations"). For example at Mental Healthcare in India: You seem to have spent no time actually searching for sources on the topic; have chosen to use the article draft as a soapbox for your own thoughts; backed up the text with poor sources or individual studies, which don't even say what you cite them for; and then argue that this is an acceptable way to edit articles for non-anglo countries. What utter poppycock!

Have you even tried looking for comprehensive sources on that topic? Five minutes of search found me these (look especially at the numerous references cited within the following reports):

• WHO Mental Health Atlas 2005, Country profiles: India (see pages 231-235) (2011 update)
• Kumar, A. (2011) Mental health services in rural India: challenges and prospects. Health, 3, 757-761. doi: 10.4236/health.2011.312126.
• Kumar, A. (2004), History of Mental Health Services in India, Journal of Personality and Clinical Studies, Vol.20, No. 1-2, March-September, 2004.
• Cohen, Alex, The effectiveness of mental health services in primary care: the view from the developing world, Geneva: World Health Organization, 2001.
• Agarwal, S.P. (ed) et al, Mental Health: An Indian Perspective (1946-2003), Directorate General of Health Services, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi, ISBN 81-8147-195-4

Compare with the sources that you found/chose to use. As I see it the problem is not with availability of sources, but rather with your willingness or ability to search for them. So I hope you'd stop using the former as an excuse, and start complying with wikipedia's content and sourcing standards if you wish to continue editing here. (apologies to SG for using her talk page to post this rant) Abecedare (talk) 20:44, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I second that rant.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:54, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Rant away, folks ... it's a daily occurrence with medical articles, and I was just off cleaning up another of same. Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Kinky Boots (musical)

Would you kindly comment on this Peer review? You might check the article's talk page re: the recent failed GA. Thanks for any help! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:35, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, you've got your hands full on that one :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I strongly object to you handling this for obvious reasons. Blethering Scot 16:24, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Of course you do; so, moving on, in the interest of the article, please keep personalization off of the article talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I can tell you right now there will be no moving on until he apologises and explains his actions. Now your peer review is utterly useless. All you did was copy your mates peer review which included stuff he plagerised off me. A second peer review will be requested. It's biased as you are two due to connection with another user. Blethering Scot 16:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Apologies are rarely extracted on Misplaced Pages, and I see nothing for which he needs to apologize. Should he apologize for helping to advance the article through content review processes, and giving a solid peer review? Peer review is open to anyone who wants to participate; my comments do not preclude or prevent anyone else from weighing in. I am most certainly connected to Ssilvers in the sense that we both know what constitutes top content in the musical theatre realm. If you continue down this battleground path, you are likely to find yourself in dispute resolution for personalization and disruption. I suggest you accept the help offered by Ssilvers to move that article forward. Perhaps taking a day or two off will help you gain a better perspective. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

He called me disruptive for reverting his edit and taking to talk page per bold revert, discuss cycle. He then reverted that which was edit warring yet he called me disruptive, at that points that is all i did. Ill quite happily take this to dispute resolution right now. Because going to your mates specifically to back you up, which is whats happened here stinks. I also believe that your peer review is a waste of time and space as its no where near independent as you just copied his. Now i would also note he was feeding the reviewer everything that was wrong with it and in my view he wants it to fail.Blethering Scot 16:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I again suggest you take a few days to cool down and gain some perspective. If you get this upset whenever someone tries to help advance the article, it is unlikely to ever make it through the GA process, much less something like FA. Also, please review WP:AGF; I find it extremely unlikely that Ssilvers wants an article to "fail", much less after the effort he put into it, and making such statements doesn't bode well for you. I am unlikely to respond to you again today as I will be heading out soon for a busy day and weekend; perhaps others will be able to reason with you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

if he is willing to discuss his comments against me then maybe we can go forward, however he has to explain them. Also i have equally put time in improving this article and i won't be accused of not wanting it improved. Ive made more suggestions to improve than he has as he copied mine as his, which i don't like he simply had to concur rather than using them in his. I suggest Ssilvers reviews AGF as well because his allegations were totally against that. The only way this is going forward is if he comes to my talk page and discusses his initial comments, he's been avoiding doing that since the word go.Blethering Scot 17:05, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm beginning to see why. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

You cant make comments you cant substantiate, especially when you are unwilling to explain the basis of the comment. The offer is there if he is willing to discuss it with me, thats an olive branch and its up to him whether he wants to use it. Also why did you post at the teahouse.Blethering Scot 17:09, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Mostly because I wonder if they are useful for anything, but also because I'm hoping someone over there will get you to drink some calming tea. If you don't mind, as I mentioned above, I need to head out soon and would rather you not continue posting here today. Perhaps tomorrow you will see things differently. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Already drink plenty of tea. I would appreciate you inviting @Ssilvers: to actually discuss the issues between us with an interest in actually moving forward. Anyway enjoy your day/evening, what ever it is where you are.Blethering Scot 17:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Mostly because I wonder if they are useful for anything... -- If you're going to make editorial comments about whether the Teahouse is useful or not, you're not likely to receive any help, Sandy. That said, the Teahouse is the wrong venue for this, and it's not really the place to go for content-related or GA-related conflicts. Sort it out yourselves or go to dispute resolution. I, JethroBT 22:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Why does everyone appear to be so angry on WP? I think I know, but I'd be curious to know what you think before I reveal the truth behind WP's inevitable demise. And it won't be much of a surprise to those who've been here for more than a few minutes. Eric Corbett 23:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Who's everyone? (Why does Jethro think I need or want help in sorting out GA issues-- aren't they here to help the disgruntled?) I take one, but I recommend two lumps for the tea folks. I thought they were here for happy talk to disgruntled people like Blathering. Now I guess it has been revealed that the TeaHouse is not here to build an encyclopedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, too many editors then. You take sugar in your tea? That's disgusting; all you can taste is sugar. Eric Corbett 23:19, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

well, at least I'm not a completely hopeless NorthAmerican ... I don't put ice in my San Pellegrino. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:40, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Try lemon in black tea, much more refreshing. Eric Corbett 00:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

You never really made it clear what you wanted, honestly, until just now. You pointed to a thread saying to help someone unspecified. Now that I know, I can tell you that most hosts do not mediate content disputes or "give people tea" (I mean, unless they want to do that, but it's not expected). And it's pretty clear you had your mind made up about the Teahouse before you made your request, so I find it unlikely that anything was going to change your mind about it. Oh well. If you look at the kinds of questions we get, you'll find we help lots of people, typically new editors. Dealing with issues like the above is just out of our scope, that's all. I think your accusations of WP:NOTHERE are not really based in anything factual. @Eric Corbett: I think most folks feel frustrated from time to time, but it usually passes like everything else. Some of that comes down to poor communication and probably lots of other crap I can't think of right now. I don't have much to say about WP's inevitable demise (seems a little dramatic), but I'm sticking around for a while. We'll see what happens. I, JethroBT 01:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Jethro, not "really it clear what wanted" might otherwise be referred to as, not trying to unduly prejudice others one way or another, rather just pointing them to the thread and letting them make their own decisions. I was hoping you would help calm an obviously upset editor, who has no reason to be upset (the content issues will be solved by several competent editors who are in there already). If that isn't what the TeaHouse does, well, I really don't know what it does. I do know that it has, in the past, habitually embraced sockmasters, so ... yea. Anyway, thanks for coming over here to clarify. It's no skin off of my back one way or another what happens in the GA review: I thought someone ought to try to help calm that editor. Thanks again, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:03, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Student editors welcome page

Hi Sandy! I've been working on text for a little template that can be added to the pages of student editors. I will be proposing some changes soon on WP:Med as to how classes edit and the 'classes editing' page, as I don't think the current system (? there is no system) approach is working very well. Some changes I will be proposing include: (1) new 'classes editing' page with a better, standardised explanation of how to edit. (2) steps for classes to edit, included on the page, including an emphasis on selecting a relevant title for a page, and not editing in mainspace, (3) a position statement from Wikimed on student editors, and (4) a new user template to be plopped on the pages of student editors, emphasising a single point of contact (their professor) and the need for secondary sources.

I'm also considering including as part of the position statement something along the lines of "Content on articles being currently edited that is not supported by reliable sources will be immediately removed by editors with reference to this statement (and a footnote explaining it's been previously a serious problem). "

I'd like your feedback on what you think about this, and also I'd really value your feedback on what the the three most important things student editors need to know is (I'll try and integrate this into the above things). Kind regards, LT910001 (talk) 06:32, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Generally, I'm not sure if any template will help, because the fundamental problem is that profs don't read before setting up courses, profs are not engaged, and the students never seem to read anything. But, if you want three things:

1. Students do not communicate as "established" or "regular" editors do (because they aren't invested, aka, they don't care). They don't respond on user or article talk or sandbox talk, they don't tag the article talk pages correctly (assignment), and even when they do, they almost never link their sandbox on article talk page, so one has to go wandering all over Misplaced Pages to find the course, the prof, the sandbox, etc. They need to use talk, just like we all do.
2. They do not take into account where their potential content belongs (which article, which section, whether it is already covered somewhere), and they choose their topic before consulting established editors. So, do the TALKING mentioned in point 1 before choosing a content area.
3. They need to realize that their habit of putting off work until the night before the assignment is due is disruptive and infuriating for established editors. We do this as a hobby-- we don't have deadlines, and we do have real lives. When they are desperate to get their text in NOW so they can get a grade, it may be the worst possible timing for us (since it often coincides with, for example, Thanksgiving holiday). If they can't work in advance of deadlines, they are more likely to find wholesale deletions of poorly sourced and poorly written text.

Another issue is that I frequently encounter obvious student editing, but can't locate the course of prof. We need a template where we can query a rash of new redlinks as to whether they are students, and pointing them to <whatever>. On one article I'm editing, if they don't stop the antics, I'm going to submit the rash of 'em to SPI to see if they can be blocked for meatpuppetry ... I have tried to communicate with five new redlinks for about a month, with narry a single response from a single one of them anywhere. I wish I had a template to let them all know where they are headed ... potential meatpuppetry block. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, SandyGeorgia. By redlinks, do you mean uncreated pages? I'll have a think about what you've said over the next few days. LT910001 (talk) 22:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

red-linked account names ... new editors who either don't know how to or don't care to put up a userpage. When they all appear at once, beginning of term, disappear at university term-end --> students. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Important

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Hans_Asperger#Franz_.22Hamburger.22 121.214.29.71 (talk) 20:56, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Regarding medical BLPs

Hi SandyGeorgia, I was hoping that you could specify which medical BLPs I created are the most problematic with regard to sourcing. I have provided a list at WT:WikiProject Medicine, and was hoping you would respond there, but since you have yet to do so, I have come here instead. Thanks, Jinkinson talk to me 02:35, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Jinkinson I've seen you hard at work on my watchlist. I should be able to get to that by tonight, if not. tomorrow ... busy IRL. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:30, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Deep transcranial magnetic stimulation

Hi,

I am the one how upload this page Barneayg (talk) 08:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I have noticed that you removed it almost completely and i really don't understand why.

I made this page in comparison to the already exiting transcranial magnetic stimulation page and tried to make it similar.

I think the page, in its former status, was very informative to anyone how is interested in this technology, and particularly to any one how considering treatment using this technology.

In its current status, this page gives almost no information.

I will be happy to fix any problem concerning ref's but i think we should restore the page to its original formation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barneayg (talk • contribs) 08:50, November 11, 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Barneayg and welcome to Misplaced Pages. You can sign your talk page entries by entering four tildes ( ~~~~ ) after them.

There were numerous problems with the article you created, so I hope the information I will give you will not be too overwhelming, and that you will process through all of it. I will start a discussion at Talk:Deep transcranial magnetic stimulation explaining the issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Inflammatory Bowel Disease Talk Page

Hi SandyGeorgia Thank you for the feedback. Should I revert the changes to the talk page then? LiZhang1312 (talk) 05:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that is necessary at this point, LiZhang1312; doing so now may just confuse matters further, and I added a link showing the changes anyway. I just pointed it out so that you would know in the future that we don't usually use article talk pages as sandboxes. The best way to indicate your proposed text in sandbox is just to add a new post, saying you've updated your sandbox, and linking to your sandbox so others will head over there to review it.

Also, in the version I posted on talk, you might note that I added a PMID to your citation, and did some copyediting of your proposed text, and asked Jdfwolff to take a look (he is a physician who knows that territory well). Thank you for engaging on talk-- it makes everyone's work so much easier :) Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Morality

I'm just perusing the talk page archives of Natalee Holloway and I came across this little gem from Talk:Natalee Holloway/Archive 4#Disappearance of Natalee Holloway: "I never remember an agreement, just your threats to oppose it based on your personal morality (aka nothing to do with Misplaced Pages). - User:AuburnPilot" I'm going to start collecting quotes like that. I was trying to explain the ethos here to someone yesterday. I told him it's not generally thought necessary to put a disclaimer about the unreliability of our medical content at the top of medical articles, which staggered him. Then I told him it's a generally accepted norm here that we don't care about the feelings of our subjects or readers - or each other for that matter. He thought it was sad. I'm not as angry as I used to be about it, I'm starting to find it interesting.

While I'm here: Thank you so much for all the effort you put in on this project. I am really pleased to see you so engaged these days. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:22, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm in favor of a disclaimer on our medical articles. With the addition to the normal POV-pushing and agenda-pushing by various researchers and corporations of the mess caused by student editing, there is no possibility we can ever keep up, and we should have a gigantic disclaimer on every article. After all, Wehwalt can install his own version of a threatening ownership on an FA; why can't we install a template on all medical content that warns everyone who hits Misplaced Pages first via Google that they are reading something written by RandyfromBoise? It wouldn't bother me at all; we can't keep up, we shouldn't pretend we can.

If you think that quote shows the dominant "morality" present on the Holloway article, I can only say that you ain't seen nothing yet. That's a long and deep and sordid story. What brings you to Holloway? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

That's funny! I just came here to mock them for this template:Template:Maintained

Sorry I don't know how to point to it without putting it on your page. I saw Holloway mentioned on a talk page somewhere. I can't remember where. So, tell me a sordid story. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)