Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:26, 22 November 2014

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.

Keep up the good work!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your great work on articles and in discussions. You are an example to us all. Please keep up the good work. John (talk) 22:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, John; most kind of you and the encouragement is appreciated. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Duck hunting

The WikiProject Medicine QuackStar Quack! Quack! Your exceptional duck-hunting efforts on Misplaced Pages have not gone unnoticed; for all your hard work in defending the Wiki from the legions of badly edited quackery, I award you the WikiProject Medicine QuackStar. Also, good hunting. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 09:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

You did a ton of work on the cannabis articles and preserving FA's over the past few months. So, I wanted to say:

Lol...nice job though. ;) Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 10:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Top medical editors

		The Medicine Barnstar
		You were one of the top 10 medical contributors to Misplaced Pages in 2013. Many thanks for all your hard work. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Misplaced Pages's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into the local language

	The Cure Award
	In 2013 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Misplaced Pages. Thank you so much for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date medical information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do!

We are wondering about the educational background of our top medical editors. Would you please complete a quick 5-question survey? (please only fill this out if you received the award)

Thanks again :) --Ocaasi, Doc James and the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation

Charlotte's Web (cannabis)

Hi Sandy. I noticed your deletion, and your edit summary:

• "Removed continued use of overquoting of emotionally laden material which creates POV, still plenty of same, sample only."

May I ask which policy justifies this deletion? Also, which other "plenty of same" are you referring to? I'd like to take a look at them and evaluate their status and framing. As you are aware, I seek to stick to properly sourced content, including opinions (very few), and have stayed away from including huge amounts of promotional and emotional potential content found in RS. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Have a look at edit summaries going back to your creation of the article; you will see that overquoting (particularly of emotionally laden or one-sided POV) has been an long-standing problem in that article ... do a search on my edit summaries. Then have a look at WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:LONGQUOTE. Quotes have been chosen in that article since its creation that present an emotional, rather than encyclopedic, tone. That is, the article has long had a problem of furthering POV with the overuse of emotionally laden quotes, specifically those related to laypersons or parents who have an impartial view of the value of the substance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah! I thought you were referring to existing content. I have usually agreed with your deletions of some of the previous quotes, but I'm not so sure this time. I don't think you should be the sole voice in this matter. WP:IMPARTIAL doesn't apply, since this is not a description of a dispute, improperly using Misplaced Pages's voice in a partial tone. We're documenting a governor's opinion, not "creating a POV", and that's what we do all the time. We are obligated to convey the POV found in the sources, and most RS which discuss CW are unequivocally favorable. So far you have succeeded in deleting many such mentions.

There is no question it's Scott's opinion, not Misplaced Pages's opinion. Besides, it's one relatively short quote in an article with very few such quotes. Most of the quotes we have are very balanced and even tend to downplay and dis CW and pot as a treatment. I fear your zeal is going a bit too far this time. Misplaced Pages editors must stay neutral, but their sources don't have to be neutral. The sources can go either way, and that's what the sources in this article do. Some are positive, while others are cautious and even negative. I don't see any policy-based reason for deleting this one quote explaining Governor Scott's motivation for signing the bill. It's a rather notable opinion which has no bearing on the scientific aspects of the matter. Those aspects get their due weight in abundance. I have no intention of including every governor's opinions, but since many sources singled out this quote, I felt it deserved mention. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Sandy, did you mean "specifically those related to laypersons or parents who may not have an impartial view of the value of the substance"? It doesn't seem to read right the other way. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Greetings

Hello. It appears you've finally left the nuthouse. Keep in touch. Gimmetrow 21:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Gimme! Curiously, just today in my personal searches on medical conditions, I happened across another mess of a Misplaced Pages medical (featured) article, and was just coming over to attempt to do something about it. I miss the good folks (like you :) but not the lack of governance and mob rule! I hope you are well. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Good to see you back. Would love to see AD updated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Based on your user page....

...I think that we are going to be friends. I joined, and have largely stayed involved with the goal of cleaning up medical misinformation on the site. In particular, the fluoroquinolone articles, which were highjacked by a group engaged in litigation against the manufacturers for over 2 years, motivated me to start editing in 2011. Levofloxacin is used for pneumonia, and early treatment is inversely correlated with survival. I sometimes wonder how many people read the pre-2012 version of the levo article, stopped taking their antibiotic, and died as a result.

The psychiatric drug articles have been another area of interest. The prozac article for example, didn't even list 8 of the 9 indications it is approved for until recently. Case reports of rare side effects, on the other hand, were covered in excrutiating detail. Formerly 98 (talk) 15:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, 98: nice to meet you, but I'm not around much anymore. Two years ago, I thought sustained attention to medical articles might make a difference (see Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates/archive55#FAC delegate resignation). I no longer think that. Good luck here ... what went on in the cannabis suite was just one of the many last straws for me! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes yes, I hear you. I'll limit my response to avoid offending some people here but I think we are very much on the same page. Formerly 98 (talk) 22:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey, Formerly 98, here's today's example! Have you ever heard of long cough? Has anyone ever heard of long cough? Well, Misplaced Pages has for at least nine months. Another apparently unwatched pharm article (which by the way, should have ALL of that uncited text removed, as it's been tagged for four long years). Daily example of pharm articles on Misplaced Pages (which has now been mirrored dozens of times on the internet). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I was reading somewhere lately about how some users (admins?) could see a list of unwatched pages. I wonder how many MED pages there are which are currently unwatched? (and - hi Sandy! good to see you back!) Alexbrn 14:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Gold but old

Sandy, what is the recommended practice for including solid but a bit dated (ca 2001) systematic reviews in wikipedia articles, when there is no newer (even close to equally good) reference available? Is the practice to simply exclude the reference; or to provide it but with the year of review prominently mentioned in main-text (the option I chose); or, .... This concerns this specific edit of mine. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 20:29, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The diff is confusing, so FYI the specific text added was A 2001 systematic review of Ayurvedic treatment of diabetes concluded that some of the herbal formulas merited further study, while noting the heterogeneity in the Ayurvedic treatment regimens and the significant methodological shortcomings of the reviewed studies. and the citation was to this AHRQ report. Abecedare (talk) 20:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your observations about student editing. After looking at a few hundred student sandboxes in the last couple weeks, I was thinking about incorporating student edits, and you've helped crystallised those thoughts. Hopefully I'll be able to do something useful with that. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:18, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

PANDAS

Hello, the increasing large community of PANDAS parents and medical providers is not in agreement with your choice of words like "hypothetical" and "theorized". We already do and will continue to take action to get current, research based information about PANDAS to the general public without the incorrect ambiguity that you state about the disease. Please see this article and many others that show no ambiguity: http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/cap.2014.0084 What do you have against medical truthfulness and PANDAS? This seems petty and malicious.