User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch117

Reviewing my draft
I'm a professional editor on arabic wikipedia, i start editing on english wikipedia by translating my last article from arabic wikipedia can you help me in submission of my new article and help me to make progress and be an editor on english wikipedia too. Thanks in advance. Ameer Fauri (talk) 16:41, 9 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I am dreadful at reviewing drafts, and prefer to avoid them, except the rare exception where I have some knowledge. Good luck, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:35, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

desktop view on a small screen
Regarding [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)&diff=1098008958&oldid=1098005483 your issue with block quoted content], and Izno's reply: the basic issue is that there's no standard way for mobile browsers to behave in this situation. When web browsing first started to become prevalent on small screens, the vendors crafted their own algorithms to try to automatically adjust web pages that were never designed for small screens, in order to make them more legible. Nowadays, the CSS style language used to control web page layout has enough expressiveness to simplify supporting different screen sizes. By using the desktop view on a small screen device, the user is falling back to the default vendor-provided algorithms. Because they're not clearly defined and can differ from device to device, there's no clear way to try to undo the effects of these algorithms that would work on all devices. You can test workarounds on the devices to which you have access, but there's no guarantee about how it might behave on other devices, even from the same vendor. If you can find a change that isn't specific to a device (for example, "if on a small screen, increase the block quote text size" would be an undesirable change) that helps, great! But as workarounds are likely to be fragile, given the uncertainty, it may not be worth investing a lot of effort into it. isaacl (talk) 20:38, 13 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much for the background detail. It helps me think (?) that I am on the right track that finding a way to rearrange the offending images that complies with MOS rather than doing any sort of workaround, while also solving the problem.  Thanks again, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  20:42, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, if that helps, that's great! Just be aware of its limitations: it might not work for devices you can't test, or might stop working in future, or someone might edit the source later on in a way that causes it to stop working. isaacl (talk)
 * Got it ... we can only do our best for now! Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  20:56, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

New message from Jo-Jo Eumerus
Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:36, 15 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Thx for the poke, Jo-Jo; I'll try to get there. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  22:13, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Featured article review/First Nagorno-Karabakh War/archive1
Hi, I was interrupted by a telephone call when you made this edit. Thankyou. Where the template says "diff for talk page notification", this wasn't clear to me that it was referring to the FAR candidate and not a diff for the other notifications. Just suggesting some clarification might be made regarding this in the template text and/or the instructions at Featured article review. Just wondering if that particular piece of info couldn't be auto added. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 05:01, 15 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's a way for it to be auto-added or done by bot ... scrutiny is required. I'll leave the list on the FAR of the other notifications you should do ... I am iPad typing, so it's hard for me to do this ... Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  05:04, 15 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi again, no problems with doing the other notifications but exactly what was required/expected could be a little clearer in the instructions. It won't be done right now but it will be done today. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 05:16, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand it seems hard the first time through, and it does get easier :). I think all the pieces are here:
 * Notify relevant parties by adding ArticleName ~ (for example, Superman ~ ) to relevant talk pages (insert article name); note that the template does not automatically create the talkpage section header. Relevant parties include main contributors to the article (identifiable through XTools), the editor who originally nominated the article for Featured Article status (identifiable through the Featured Article Candidate link in the Article Milestones), and any relevant WikiProjects (identifiable through the talk page banners, but there may be other Projects that should be notified). The message at the top of the FAR should indicate who you have notified.
 * I'd try to help out, but it's a lot to do from an iPad. Best regards, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  05:22, 15 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, I see that I missed that (pretty certain this is my first visit here as a nominator). I might suggest that the instructions at point 6 be broken down into sub points so that it is less daunting. After the first notification to MilHist, I then did a copy/paste to the others - copying the tilde version of the signature block and editing the whole page rather than creating a new section. Might it be useful to mention that? Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:22, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Splitting up point 6 is a great suggestion, and I've implemented it; might further tweak.  You aren't the first (by any means) to have difficulty with this!  I know it's a steep learning curve, and appreciate that you got it done!  It is hard for most editors the first time, but becomes easier as you develop a system, but everyone seems to have their own method.   I have gotten it down now by doing everything in advance in sandbox.  When I remove the listing from WP:FARGIVEN, I grab the notification diff from there and copy it in to Sandbox.  While I'm waiting for the article page stats to load from the article tools, I click on the FAC from articlehistory to and copy the editor name who nominated the FAC and copy it to sandbox.  Then I grab the WikiProject list from the talk page banners and copy them to sandbox. Then I mass edit the WikiProjects to add Wikiproject talk: to the front end of each, strip the junk at the back end, and add, ... then I go back and browse the article stats to determine what editors are either continuously or recently or most active, but check that none of them are socks.  Then I copy in those names after the nominator name.  Then I edit that line to include Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  13:28, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oopsie, two other things I forgot in the post above:
 * The suggested ArticleName ~ can often be shortened. If it's archive1 (first FAR, often the case) you can shorten that to: article name ~  ... add your heading, when you edit the first notification, then copy the whole thing before you submit so you can paste it on subsequent notificaitons.
 * On whether to edit the whole page to create a new section, I suspect different editors use different methods. I have what appears to be an odd practice of going to the last section on the page and editing it to add a new section.  For some reason, I'Ve never figured out how to use the links to add a new section, and I'm quite sure this dog is too old to learn that new trick :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  13:34, 15 July 2022 (UTC)


 * PS, since it's your first FAR, I thought I might also mention then to monitor and keep the FAR page posted with something like perhaps weekly comments along the lines of Improvements happening, work underway, no improvment ... working towards a statement at about ten days of ... Move to FARC, or Work progressing (an indication not to move to FARC), etc, so the FAR Coords have an idea whether to make the move to FARC at the two-week mark. Brrowsing some of the other active FARs will help.  Note there are six procedurals FARs on the page right now that are NOT typical, as they related to one nominator known for creating a hoax.  Note also Featured article review/Religious debates over the Harry Potter series/archive1 is atypical in that experienced FAR editors have entered a Move to FARC declaration immediately, rather than waiting about ten days to see if anyone attempts improvements-- this is because of the recently completed FAR of a related article, so that we know a) how bad that article is, and b) no one is likely to improve it.  In typical cases, it's best to see if an editor engages before entering a declaration for the Coords.  It's a very individualized process, deliberately so, to try do to all we can to leave articles better than we found them.  Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  13:41, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM dates
Am I right in remembering that you have successfully edited using this script? I have been trying (aided by my non-existent JavaScript knowledge) to get it to work on my Mac and haven't gotten it to do anything on either Chrome, Firefox, or Safari. Hoping you or a stalker could help me figure out what I'm doing wrong. I just tried re-adding it to my common.js and it once again did nothing. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:04, 17 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, and it works on all my devices, including the iPad.
 * User:SandyGeorgia/common.js
 * User:AleatoryPonderings/common.js
 * Looks the same to me, so I wonder if you have something installed that creates a conflict? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:10, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Quite possibly, but no idea what it is. Ah well ... AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:34, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If no one answers here, you can try WP:VP/T. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile, is there an article you need me to operate it on ? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:38, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Appreciate it. I should also check the threads on the talk page to the script documentation but I was too lazy ... The page I was thinking about was Canadian Broadcasting Corporation which has some inconsistent formatting but I'm sure I'll want to use it elsewhere in the future. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Did that one; let me know once you decipher the problem. Feel free to ask me for any others in the interim. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:49, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

you have to be in edit mode on an article before the script shows up in a toolbox at the left hand side of your screen ... is it not showing there when you are in edit mode? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  13:06, 18 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Not then, either - except, oddly, on my common.js page itself? So I can see what the script is supposed to look like, but only when editing that one page. I'm sure you're right that it must be some other script interacting with the MOSNUM one. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:13, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, well ... feel free to ping me when you need a date fix. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  13:15, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

FARs
Running quite a bit behind on stuff due to being busy both in RL and on-wiki. Still working on enzyme inhibitor, and Palladian and Chicxulub are on my radar too. Darjeeling and Missouri will probably require my attention fairly soon, too. And I need to get around to looking at RFK sometime. Plus I've got a Civil War campaign that's a glaring redlink that I've been promising to write for months. And I'm trying to pull together a collaboration to try to work up Vicksburg campaign (my wildest dream is a July 4, 2023 TFA, but I don't think that's going to be possible). + giving those Ludington articles a skim Also June-October is my busy season for work. I'll try to get through everything for FAR, but it'll be slower going for me. Hog Farm Talk 05:12, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * reading that made me tired enough to want to go right back to sleep! I, too, had fallen quite behind on FAR (between the wedding trip and then the other real life stuff that hit after the wedding), and am now making a massive push to catch up.  Both Palladian architecture and Chicxulub crater had to be priorities, as their FARs had multiple (premature) statements saying they were good to close, when they weren't yet close. Thankfully, the astute FAR Coords wait for independent review.  After considerable cleanup, I think they are ready for a look now, if you want to check them.  The others are in no danger of being closed prematurely, and I'll get to them as soon as I can also.  I don't think any of the others are urgent, but Palladian is (tentatively) scheduled for the mainpage, so does need a look. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  13:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * oops, forgot to sign the ping. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  13:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Through the enzymes; Palladian next. Hog Farm Talk 04:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * , we've got COVID. So far, I'm not as sick as my husband is, but we'll see ... may not get much editing in this week. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  11:09, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Eep, hope you and your husband get well soon. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 15:33, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, David ... so far, we are just feeling worse by the minute :) Him more so than me ... Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:53, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Still sick, but have turned a corner now and starting to feel better. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:05, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear that you're feeling better. I've been praying for y'all. Hog Farm Talk 19:15, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks HF; it was nasty. We got it at a funeral for a dear friend where church was packed to the brim ... thankfully, so far, none of the older women at church seem to have gotten it.  I'm still quite fuzzy brained ... Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:22, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * best of luck on your exam! I am feeling a bit better, but still too foggy-brained to take on any serious reviewing.  Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:52, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm still trying to make a list of what all needs looked at now that I've gotten through enzyme inhibitor and Palladian - with the TFA/R Darjeeling is probably top priority once Fowler is done, and between that, the exam, and a work trip next week I'm probably not going to get to another until the weekend after this one. Barring any new changes to Missouri, it's probably Chicxulub after that unless you've got other thoughts on which ones are most important.  The article writing (Little Rock campaign) is out of the way now, too. Hog Farm Talk 16:05, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think anything else is critical right now; Chicxulub isn't being considered for the main page, so there's no hurry, but it is also the closest to closing, so a good use of time. I can't offer an opinion on Darjeeling, as my head still hurts too much to dig in for a complete review, and I haven't kept up there. I wish we could get Joanne wrapped up, but new concerns were raised, so need to hear first from Wtfiv.  I think you should focus on passing your exam! Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:17, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Jargon
Regarding an abbreviation for "partial block": I'm not aware of this being a common usage (yet). I beseech you not to give it any oxygen! The unlinked "partial block" phrase is shorter to type in than the linked abbreviation, and, in my view, equally if not more expressive. (As an unsolicited suggestion, of course feel free to disregard it if you prefer. It's just part of my tilting-at-windmills, lost-cause attempt to reduce the use of jargon.) Thanks very much for the time you've spent examining the edits under investigation. isaacl (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Good thinking ... how irritating it was to have an entire section about an undefined acronym, and we don't need to spread more of those. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you :)

 * Thank you, Sennecaster, and thank your for the tireless soul-crushing work you do in that area! Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:32, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Sandy, at this point I don't believe that we need to review your edits at CCI; your checks are already thorough enough. Feel free to delete the diffs that you check, both ones that you mark and  :D  Sennecaster  ( Chat ) 04:44, 28 July 2022 (UTC)


 * , thanx ... I think I've gotten them all now, and trimmed the collapse headers on all you doublechecked. Best regards, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:23, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

The first sentence of a long section
S’pose there’s a section in an article, maybe a long and detailed section full of subsections and specific facts. Surely it’s permissible to start it with a general sentence instead of jumping right into details. But whenever one writes such a sentence, must one summarize? It’s not a lead, after all. If the answer is “no” then what authority is there for that other than the solemn word of SandyGeorgia (and of me)? I sometimes prefer to write such a sentence merely providing a little background and context, and/or indicating purpose and importance of the section, or maybe to just grab the reader’s interest so they won’t go do something useful with their lives after reading the prior section. Gracias.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:11, 28 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Fraught topic ... Awadewit sometimes did that, and that was often original research. I can't think of a place where I've done that recently unless a source does. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:13, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, I’d definitely use the info from RS’s, and include footnotes. But even then it seems to be controversial.  I don’t see why the choice must be binary: either jump right into specifics or else start with a summary.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:37, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Because any time yo9u start with a summary, you are inviting OR tags ... and as Awadewit's work shows, ten years from now if the original writer is no longer around, it can be hard to sort. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:39, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I don’t want to start with a summary though. I want to start with some background and context, all nicely sourced and cited.  Anyway, I hope you’re doing well!  Cheers, &#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:42, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Well that sounds fine! I am trying to get past the foggy brain of COVID ... taking longer than I'd like.  Hence ... don't pay too much attention to me :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh gosh, I didn’t know you got it. Get 100% well soon!!!  Best, &#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm trying ... Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:53, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Darjeeling
Thanks for helping out here. Just so busy in RL and I'm more tired every day. Been spending much of what little extra time I have with my stamp collection because that's way less intense. And when I spend all day in front on my travel monitor, my eyes can't take much more screen time. Hog Farm Talk 02:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)


 * My pleasure :) I think F&f is creating a masterpiece there, but I wish we weren't cutting it so close. Take care there, enjoy the stamps; a break every now and then is a very good thing! Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  02:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Self-harm vs non-suicidal self-injury
Thought the AfD discussion Articles for deletion/Van Gogh syndrome would be of some interest to you, since you're good with medical topics. A few editors have proposed that the article should be renamed to "Non(-)suicidal self-injury". Also, I’m seeing if I can contribute at the Planet FAR, butI’m not sure of the distinction between the initial stage of review and FARC. Ovinus (talk) 23:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC)


 * one of the most unproductive discussions I ever got involved in on wikipedia was over the word suicide. And I have a dismal record at AFD.  I think I'll avoid that one :) :)  Don't worry about the stages at FAR and FARC; basically, work can process in either phase.  On those articles where nothing is happening, during the FAR phase we identify issues, but have to wait a few weeks before "voting" on delisting at the FARC phase.  When work is happening, all of that becomes blurred-- no longer matters, except that we can't "vote" to remove an FA until/unless it moves to FARC.  Does that answer your question? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:26, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Lololol okay. May I ask what this unproductive discussion was... lemme guess, MOS:SUICIDE. Re FAR/FARC, that makes sense. Seems more procedural than anything, then? In any case, I suppose procedure is not reason to not improve the article. Ovinus (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It started at Robin Williams, where my only interest was in getting the diagnosis right ... from there it became a never-ending timesink about suicide language. I think I helped craft one of the RFCs, that did nothing to stop the problem. It's easy enough to rephrase! Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  20:50, 28 July 2022 (UTC)


 * This looks like an easy merge to me. It had been 10 years since I last reviewed the SH/SI/NSSI/SM literature, but Self Harm was the prefered title then followed by Self Injury. I would be shocked if non suicidal self-injury took over as being the common name. It was considered to be a dated term then. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:08, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Sylvain Lesné Summary
I'm unsure if the summary of a researcher under public scrutiny is a good place to put in an unsourced confirmation of the amyloid hypothesis. Most quotes reflect that the knock-on effects of the allegations are minor, the validity of the theory has never been rock-solid. Maybe change the language to just express that the overall impact of the investigation on amyloid research is relatively minor? 173.24.145.238 (talk) 06:30, 30 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks, 173; I will have a look after I am properly caffeinated, and see how I can adjust the wording based on the sources, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:19, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Better ? . Thanks for picking that up, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:58, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Joan of Arc
Hi Sandy, I'd just like to get your thoughts: I feel like the changes have addressed the major concerns- and with your insight removed the sockpuppet- but the concerns with it continue to morph. I am curious why this article is so strange, and why approval is so problematic. I would've thought James Joyce would have been way tougher, but it was easier and more collaborative with passionate, positive editors jumping in and helping out. Very odd... a bit discouraging... Part of me feels like I should just let it go, but as happens, I've invested a lot of time in it, so I'm also invested in trying to see it through. But do you have any insights, given your Wikipedia expertise, what the issue in this particular case may be? Also I wanted to state that I appreciated the work you did on the article: your recent edits, your patience with my torturous prose, and your advocacy with the review process. Wtfiv (talk) 20:19, 30 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I suspect that one of the main holdups there is related to the socking; many (like me) are hesitant to let the FAR close until we are more convinced the sock is contained. And as long as the FAR stays open, people keep picking at it :)  In other words, I don't think you should be troubled, as good can come from this.  I had my son's wedding, followed by a family health issue, then COVID, while Hog Farm has had similar real life issues interfering.  The other really big problem is that FAR has gotten backlogged by some other very big saves.  First, too many planets nominated at once.  Then Palladian architecture.  And now we are all swamped because Darjeeling was (prematurely, in my opinion) nominated for the main page, so we have to scramble to finish up there.  Between Darjeeling, Palladian architecture and Chicxulub crater, I suspect that others, like me, just haven't found the time to finish up at Joan.  Which is very unfair to you, I know, but it's mostly because we really aren't worried about it ... we know it is probably fine, while other articles at FAR are pressing. :) :) I think Joan will be over the hump just as soon as a few more of us get some free time to look.  I hope you know how much your work is appreciated: Joan is a much huger save than Joyce was, and that's pretty big! Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  20:25, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * To butt in here: The end is certainly near for that FAR, and I have no doubts it will be a positive one. Wtfiv, your work is about as first class as it gets—I would say just hold tight for now, you've done all the heavy lifting, its just a matter of gradually finalizing matters and now. Sometimes reviewers find an issue or two and make up their mind about a whole article—thus once those issues are addressed, the article suddenly becomes appealing again :)  Aza24  (talk)   20:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reassurance, Sandy and . I'm glad it is more about process in Wikipedia, not necessarily other issues! Wtfiv (talk) 20:57, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Talk page banners in August 2022
Just now, I reverted and reworked some changes you made to a talk page where you added (this edit).

My reasoning is FAQ entries aren't that useful if they're tucked away where most people can't see them. It's easy to overlook a single collapsed template that holds a hodgepodge of unrelated templates, especially personally speaking as someone who's looked at a lot of Wikipedia talk pages. You are welcome to revert my edit if this doesn't seem sensible.

I do agree accumulation of talk page header clutter is an issue. I've been thinking about this for a few years, and it seems like it might benefit from some template improvements (both organizationally and functionality-wise), script improvements, and maybe a new bot. And, I imagine it can also benefit from editors who care about it! I notice used to handle some of this work, but I also think new bots need be handled with care to be sure they follow community consensus (and GimmeBot was apparently buggy: error, my fix).

Notably, it seems like you've been at this a lot longer than I have: I notice the linked Signpost article from 2008 in your edit summary (I made my first edit to the English Wikipedia in 2015). So, feel free to impart any sage advice you may have gained from experience. Retro ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 21:03, 5 August 2022 (UTC) (Also, sorry if this is verbose)


 * The FAQ doesn't need to be hidden (I don't usually do that, so that may have been a miss on my part), but the other three are not helping the talk page. Pageviews are accessible via a tab on article history, and just clutter talk. Previous moves are there for bookkeeping reasons, and don't need to be viewable.  And editors will BrEng as one of the first lines in the article when they edit an article, so installing a banner to enclose those three would reduce talk clutter.  On the other hand, it's not one of the most dreadful talk pages in terms of clutter, so whatever you prefer ...  Alas and alack, what GimmeBot used to do, no one bot is yet doing (he was chased off by a prolific master sockmaster, after receiving very little appreciation from the FA community), so I do it manually when I'm able-- hopefully the articlehistory templates are then at least a bit more readable and understandable.  Regards, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:10, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hm, I'll have to think more about BrEng and Page views: you make some strong points. Personally, I favor individually auto-collapsing templates over hiding multiple templates, and I think excessive templates tends to be a symptom of an underlying issue where some templates may need to be merged, replaced, redesigned, or just plain removed. I'd be interested in doing some science and collecting systematic data about how talk banner usage is distributed across articles...
 * IMO, previous moves are often a bit more than bookkeeping, especially in this particular article. There is basically a perennial proposal to move the article with 5 RMs linked and apparently apparently 40+ previous discussions (wow!). But, that information could be communicated better than incompletely filling out a boilerplate template with what looks to be outdated information: I've sort of addressed some of this with a follow-up edit (it's less compact, so unfortunately I've basically gone two steps forward and one step back). Also, to be entirely fair, the talk page does have an editnotice, but I generally find those easy to accidentally overlook if they aren't bright red, especially because they are so boilerplated in certain areas of the encyclopedia. Retro  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 12:38, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not fussed about whatever ends up there; my mission is to clean up articlehistory (what GimmeBot used to do) and leave them in an understandable sate. A more typical cleanup for me involves finding ITN or OTD entries not included in the articlehistory, so they are really adding to talk clutter, or duplicate DYK and GA transclusions on talk, when they are already in articlehistory.  If someone reverts my additional cleanup, no problem.  What is interesting to me, though, in terms of pageviews is that the article is a 2 million, and yet you and I have spent more time discussing the talk page than any football editor would put in to the simple edits needed to save that bronze star at FAR.  It wasn't that bad and it didn't seem likely in advance that no one would care.  Now that is just pathetic-- that such a high-value star was ignored by those who edit the topic and the star was lost.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:22, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Joan of Arc FAR
Hi Sandy, I just want to let you know there is no big deal on hurrying through the Joan of Arc FAR. It'll arrive when it arrives. My major hope is that the end of my efforts to address the stated issues, ensure text-citation integrity, and work with a possible sockpuppet editor (PSE), won't result in the loss of the FA, once things are sorted. (There was one positive side effect of the PSE: I appreciated the close scrutiny of a second pair of eyes, and it felt good when the SPE agreed with major changes that were based on the text.) Just as much, I'm glad you're aware that I'm there to help out when asked. (At least some of the time!)Wtfiv (talk) 00:18, 6 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I really appreciate your popping in there, and so did F&f! I found the oddest thing when continuing my rampage through old boxes, closets, drawers trying to tame the clutter around the house ... a 198-something article that my husband saved! (He can recite his poems from memory in German.)  As soon as we get through Darjeeling, I'll read that article ... from The New Republic, something about Rilke in America. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  01:00, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Too fun! So it looks like there may be an upcoming adventure in poetry for you, albeit via second hand! Wtfiv (talk) 01:04, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I doubt it! While I dearly appreciate my husband reciting poetry to me, I did remark to him tonight that I find poetry as exciting as bowling :) :) :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  01:07, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Whoops
Sorry for rollbacking on you on the keto article! I misclicked and meant to undo with a summary. Steven Walling &bull; talk   03:25, 8 August 2022 (UTC)


 * No problem; it used to happen to me all the time, until I installed some doo-hickey that kept me from being able to use rollback at all. That button is dangerously placed! Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  03:27, 8 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I'll have to look for that gadget too! I never use rollback intentionally anymore since I don't do a lot of vandalfighting. Steven Walling &bull; talk   03:29, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it might be somewhere in preferences, but I'm not sure ... I installed so many things so long ago that I no longer know where to find them! Maybe some nice TPS will show up and explain ... I can say I haven't missed it. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  03:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Under appearance settings there is "Show a confirmation prompt when clicking on a rollback link". I bet you can hide it with user CSS too but a confirmation should at least prevent my fat fingers in the future LOL. Steven Walling &bull; talk   03:33, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I completely disabled it somehow ... Sandy Georgia (Talk)  03:38, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I found it in User:SandyGeorgia/monobook.css; not sure how you install though ... Sandy Georgia (Talk)  03:41, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Just popping down from the topic above to note that I had this same problem and eventually found User:MusikAnimal/confirmationRollback which has saved me embarrassment a few times. Making the rollback button disappear would be even better for me, so I'll keep an eye on this thread. Ajpolino (talk) 04:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Penny for your thoughts on Dracunculiasis?
Hi Sandy, I've been oh-so slowly cleaning up at dracunculiasis and am considering an eventual return to FAC. Any chance you'd have the time and interest to give it a readthrough at some point and let me know what you think? In particular, I'd love to know if you think any aspects of the topic are undercovered or poorly covered. I've reached out to as well, with the hopes of reconstituting the Chagas disease dream team, even if just for a moment; but I see you're both very busy with other things. I'm happy to wait in line or get told to take a hike if needed. If you can find the time, any thoughts would be greatly appreciated. I hope you're staying well!! Best, Ajpolino (talk) 00:23, 8 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I would love to help out! Right now I'm up to my eyeballs trying to clean up a VERY long FAR (Joan of Arc), but will turn my attention to there ASAP.  I survived COVID :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  01:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I am in bed reading your article on the iPad; should make for sweet dreams ... how do you sleep at night? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  04:25, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Ha! Sorry it can't be as sugar-sweet as reading Joan of Arc!... At least dracunculiasis is minimally gory. I've been picking the WHO neglected tropical diseases in alphabetical order, believe it or not, and I regret to report that there are some more severely " " ones waiting in the wings (perhaps more fuel for TFA image discussion ;) ) Thanks again for your help!! Ajpolino (talk) 04:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Finished reading, see some small tweaks I can make myself, and a couple of clarifications needed, will type up tomorow. If you have to wait forever for GAN, you could probably go straight to FAC ... g'night, and thanks for the nightmare :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  04:43, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

DB Cooper
Hi Sandy: Is anyone monitoring the D. B. Cooper page? There is a lot of new information there that may need to be reviewed. KatDales (talk) 13:39, 15 August 2022 (UTC)


 * That's an awful lot of editing since it was de-featured! No, it doesn't appear that anyone is watching it.  The two editors most involved at Featured article review/D. B. Cooper/archive1 were  and ; I don't know if they are following still or want to look in. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:45, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

battle of the tenaru
SandyGeorgia, i know you have stated above that you do not get along with pings, so i am instead leaving you a message here about a possible minor issue with the blurb for the battle of the tenaru. dying (talk) 09:35, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * just so you know, i decided to delay updating the blurb to allow any interested milhist editors to contribute to the discussion if they have any additional insight. i also figured that it should not be an issue finding an administrator to update the blurb if Hog Farm is part of the discussion.  no need to respond; hope your evening is going well!  dying (talk) 00:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much, Dying ... just home, and too tired to peek in, but we'll get there. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  03:28, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * barring further MILHIST input, my instinct is to go with some variant of "about 800 were killed". If nothing new comes up over the next several hours, I'll borrow a computer and make some changes to the article and blurb. Hog Farm Talk 16:40, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

British Listed Buildings
Hi, thank you for spotting that a paragraph in St Pierre, Monmouthshire was the same as in British Listed Buildings. However, I think you were mistaken in assigning a Creative Commons license to this source, because the text is from the listed buildings specification on the Cadw website. The CC license on the British Listed Buildings website only applies to their 'original material'. Listed buildings specifications appear to be Crown Copyright, which does not permit copying to Wikipedia. British Listed Buildings claims it is using the material under the Open Government Licence, but I am dubious whether this is valid; partly because the Cadw homepage is labelled 'Crown Copyright'.

The text was introduced by here, and I notice that you contributed to the recent block discussion concerning this editor. I have rewritten the paragraph to remove the copyright violation.

Regards, Verbcatcher (talk) 21:11, 18 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks, ; I've been pulled away from the CCI because of other demands, and am very busy IRL today and tomorrow; we should probably get 's opinion on that anyway (I thought I already had). Sandy Georgia (Talk)  21:14, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I have just found your exchange at User talk:Diannaa/Archive 83. You mentioned that Cwm, Llanrothal had the same issue – I plan check that, unless Diannaa reassures me about the license. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:36, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for the followup; it was confusing to me at the time, and I just can't catch up today. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  21:46, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * CADW's home page copyright statement shows that their material is released under an Open Govt license. https://cadw.gov.wales/copyright-statement — Diannaa (talk) 22:39, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * thank you. I conclude that it is ok to copy from Welsh listed building specifications descriptions providing that the copied text is properly attributed, probably using OGL-attribution. This probably applies to other parts of the UK, although this should be confirmed on the websites of the appropriate government agencies. Verbcatcher (talk) 23:29, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Correct. Most but not all UK govt webpages are released under the OGL or Open Parliament license. You need to look for copyright information and licensing on each individual page or the particular govt branch home page to ensure that it's compatibly licensed. — Diannaa (talk) 00:12, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * just home from a very long day, was iPhone typing earlier, thanks for wrapping that up. Could you doublecheck that what I wrote at 16:58 23 July at Contributor copyright investigations/20220720 is correct or update as needed? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  02:50, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not seeing anything incorrect there. — Diannaa (talk) 13:10, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to the bullet point which starts "Here is a sample for dealing with britishlistedbuildings.so.uk", where the linked change added the following: This is not correct because the copied text was under the Open Government Licence, not CC BY 2.0. I think the notice should have been: The CC licence at britishlistedbuildings only applies to their original material, which is minimal. Only their listed building data is likely to be copied to Wikipedia, and their About This Website page says that this "is used under the Open Government Licence".
 * Material was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 International License.
 * Material was copied from this source, which is available under a Open Government Licence.

you pointed out the OGL licence on the Cadw website, but the corresponding licence statements on the Historic England and Historic Environment Scotland websites appear to restrict the OGL licence to spacial data sets. Nigel Ish posted a note that supports my conclusion for Historic England. I have found no indication that English and Scottish listed building descriptions have been released under OGL.

I support the efforts of the CCI volunteers, and I hope you don't see this as nit-picking. Regards, Verbcatcher (talk) 21:40, 19 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Not nitpicking, as I am struggling to get this right. But have to go out again for the evening, and appreciate others sorting it! Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:48, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Visiting https://britishlistedbuildings.co.uk/site/about, it states:
 * ""Listed building data is obtained from three sources:
 * England: Historic England
 * Scotland: Historic Scotland
 * Wales: Cadw
 * All data obtained from official sources is © Crown Copyright and is used under the Open Government Licence."
 * Below that it says:
 * "All original material on British Listed Buildings by British Listed Buildings is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 UK: England & Wales License." It's up to the person adding the content or adding the licensing details to inspect each source web page and determine which license applies. It's best not to generalize. — Diannaa (talk) 21:56, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

The Mountainous Barnstar
Support, less poetic: thank you today for your rescue work for Darjeeling, good to see it on the Main page! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:10, 15 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks to both! Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:45, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! CCI is hard work; I haven't given up, just got suddenly very busy IRL just as some messy article issues cropped up.  Regards, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  05:09, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

just sayin'
What a lovely support statement. We should all have people noticing our work like this. :) Valereee (talk) 21:15, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Medicine Newsletter - August 2022
Ajpolino (talk) 21:28, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

As promised
User:Hog Farm/FAR pageviews. Everything from Joan's 1.1 million this year to Larrys Creek's ~600. (Ironically, both of the extremes are stalled out). FWIW, my 7 FACs barely break 100,000 combined for the same time period, suggesting that I'm indeed more useful at FAR. Or, as Mrs. HF suggests, that I'm just a nerd for obscure things Hog Farm Talk 03:30, 6 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Wow, can't believe you got that done already. Too tired to look, but will comment in the am.  Your low pageview articles are still valuable :)  The problem is not that we have niche or small or less "vital" or less viewed articles; the problem at FAC has been that we can't even civilly discuss how to encourage the other kind :)  Going to sleep now, Darjeeling Dizzy. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  03:33, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * As an aside, I really don't think it would be responsible for me to nominate anything at FAR for the foreseeable future. Just too busy to keep up with more than 3 right now, frankly.  Darjeeling should be nearing resolution, and the School for Creative and Performing Arts is likely gone in a week, and that'll get me down to three (Irene, Missouri, and Larrys Creek). Hog Farm Talk 04:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I'll bite!
Give me a clue then, and I'll be happy to look, if it interests me and I continue to have time, energy and health to take it on. John (talk) 17:58, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It's too early now, as there are more serious issues to be sorted before a copyedit, and Featured article review/Andrew Jackson/archive1 was launched prematurely, but the prose at Andrew Jackson suffers from extreme verbosity and frequently goes off topic. Have a look at the FAR and at my comments on the talk page.  As it appears that the nominator,  is receptive, my suggested approach there is 1) get the POV issue more under control (that usually takes care of itself over time, as folks realize that FAR is not for speedy delists, so they may as well stop screaming and start collaborating); 2) create and cut considerable content to Military career of Andrew Jackson; 3) do a better job of more tightly summarizing content from Presidency of Andrew Jackson; 4) and then after all that is done, your skills at copyediting and verbosity reduction would be most helpful.  I think  is down for the same plan, but it's early still to start on that sort of work, as some serious cutting and trimming should be done before copyediting. (Someone over on talk is focusing on copyediting now, which is really premature at this stage.) Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:10, 24 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi SendyGeorgia. I appreciate your words on the FA review page and on the Andrew Jackson talk page. The article has undergone extensive changes over the past month as a result of the current content dispute. As you probably have deduced by now, it centers around what some editors allege is a pro-Jackson tone in the article, particularly the lead. It began when FinnV3, a novice editor with practically no editing experience, attempted to change something in the opening paragraph, and one other editor and myself objected. It has since escalated to the point where it has involved dozens of editors and dragged on for about a month. I've been involved in some contentious and drawn out things on Wikipedia, but this is one of the most intense. If you are looking to be involved in working on the article long-term, I'd appreciate that. In doing so, I think that it might help for you to be able to see the last stable version of the article. Here it is. This version is only 16,786 words. It's too long, but not as bad as the current version. Perhaps it would be edifying to compare this with the newer version of the article and examine in what ways you think the article has improved or worsened during the ongoing dispute. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 18:29, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * As a FAR regular, I feel that I can be more effective in the long run by not getting directly involved in the content dispute ... but I do appreciate the problem as you describe it. Give it time; that editor might flame out, and then if there are issues, they can be calmly addressed by more experienced editors at FAR. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:45, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I was referring to you being involved in copyediting and trimming, not the content dispute. Display name 99 (talk) 19:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Just noticed that the Legacy section also needs some serious trimming-- another area where a sub-article could be/should be created and content summarized. Have a look at Joan of Arc, one of the most studied figures of the Middle Ages, and an internationally recognized heroine and sant: Legacy, 980 words. J. K. Rowling, one of the most successful writers ever: 447 words.  Jackson, 1,800 words, featuring overquoting as well. I am wondering why FAC let this one out in the state it's in, and the faster content is trimmed to sub-articles, the more likely the article can be saved. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  00:12, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Getting active
It's funny, as overuse of passive voice is genuinely one of my bugbears. What do you think of a redlink for ? He surely deserves one? John (talk) 22:53, 24 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't know ... we should probably ask on that one.  I think our legs are being pulled on article talk re passive voice. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:32, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I realized that I forgot to respond to this page:
 * , I'm with Sandy, I don't think you should worry about this too much. Given your insight as an editor, if the passive voice was coming on too strong, you would have gracefully removed it. I was thinking that the user account bears a remarkable similarity to other user accounts we've experienced in the "Joan of Arc corner of Wikipedia. You can take a look at this user's previous posts in Joan's talk to get a sense of the eclectic nature of this focused concern on Joan's article. Regardless, I try my best to respect any point made, so I responded. If I'm correct about the user and their concern, my response on "who killed Joan", which otherwise seems orthogonal to the passive voice issues, may partly address their concern. If not, we'll hear more. On a different point: I'm delighted and honored that you chose to copy edit Joan. Your strengths as an editor are admirable. Without your thorough edits (and Sandy's, of course), I'm uncertain the FARC would have considered keeping the article. Wtfiv (talk) 01:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * . Certainly when a talk page is being used indiscriminately, and to further points held by only one editor and with which no one else agrees, we are all free to ignore the posts rather than being drawn into continuous WP:IDHT arguments. That is, we don't need to let our time be misspent when only one editor has an issue that no one else has. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:08, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Joan has finally been allowed back into the ranks of the FA! What a long, strange trip its been. I'll still keep at it to make sure all reviewer's concerns are addressed, and to make sure she doesn't get socked again. But I need to repeat it once more: I am very grateful for all you shared: the intensive labor, the patience, the resources, the support and guidance! Thank you! Wtfiv (talk) 02:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Great news to wake up to, . Sadly, you can't get back the year of your life taken by a sock, but I hope there is consolation in knowing your efforts prevailed and Wikipedia ended up with a spectacular success thanks to you !! Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  13:48, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, and getting to work with you closely med it worth it! If Jackson ever makes it to FAR, I'll help out if you need it! Wtfiv (talk) 16:28, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you have the paradoxical reaction that I do, but when one of the tough ones closes, I feel suddenly so much exhaustion that I can barely think, and have to go away for a few days or focus on mindless editing. I find myself numb.  Jackson will be a tranwreck, that I don't look forward to.  The entrenchment I've already seen does not bode well. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:33, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Heads up
Hi SandyGeorgia. I started a discussion at WP:COIN about our friend at Cassava Sciences/Simufilam. I mentioned you there briefly. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:07, 30 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I figured we'd end up there sooner or later ... the articles are so embarassing, and I want to continue cleanup, but the talk page is just an insufferable thing to behold, and I'm just tired of it. I so dislike leaving something as half-assed as those pages are now, but what an insufferable situation. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  04:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Great work!
Hi @SandyGeorgia, I'm really appreciative about all the excellent work you do on assorted articles. I look to your edits as good examples so that hopefully I can be a little less timid in making edits. ScienceFlyer (talk) 20:37, 1 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks ... I'll admit it's a bit hard to do as I am so often (as I am now) editing from an iPhone hotspot ... which makes me look like more of a ditz than I actually am :) Sandy Georgia (Talk)  20:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

FASA nomination John
Thank you for that. It was a very nice touch. Great to be working with you again after all this time. Can't wait for the next challenge! Well, actually I could do with a week or so off to be honest.. John (talk) 18:37, 6 September 2022 (UTC)


 * The pleasure is all mine :) I've got another one for you, but it can wait a week.  Take care, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  20:05, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * PS, John, I'd like to reserve your talents for the most worthy, so hope you won't get tangled up in some of those that are now so poor that they may be beyond saving. Don't want you to burn out- would rather see you work at the high level that Joan was when you stepped in, and we have another one like Joan brewing, but it needs a bit more content review before it's ready for fresh eyes to look at the prose. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  02:22, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * if you've had enough of a break now, might you be enticed to have a look at Josquin des Prez?  has gotten it to a point that it basically needs a set of fresh eyes to look at the prose, where you might do some prose tightening as you did at Joan of Arc.  Best regards, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  11:59, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Schizophrenia
I have always gotten very strong WP:NOTHERE vibes from that user. There's definitely issues of ASPERSIONS and sourcing, POVPUSHING, etc. many of which have appeared to be very intractable and complex. I'm not sure there is a succinct or reasonable way to explain the numerous problems with their contributions. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:10, 21 August 2022 (UTC)


 * The bigger problem is that if more editors don't start watchlisting, updating, and maintaining schizophrenia, it will have to go to WP:FAR and be defeatured, and then it will go all to heck .. and it is a very high-view article, as well as rated top importance. It's an indicator of the quality issues across our medical content. Problem editors take care of themselves over time; problematic content not so much. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:05, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You've certainly succeeded in giving me reason to work on it more closely, scout's honor. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 18:11, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Casliber is planning to update it, so giving him a chance to work first would be best ... Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:13, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Trimming and such
Trimming Josquin's article is strangely depressing :( Your efforts at Joan and JKR have reminded me just how high we can put our standards, so I suppose it's a necessary evil. I'm not done with the legacy section, but only a few lines are needed. When do you think Joan will wrap up? I really do think in 2–3 weeks we'll be able to keep and close Josquin's FAR.  Aza24  (talk)   03:52, 26 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Hard to tell about Joan because both Firefangledfeathers and Victoria may have more to say ... if they come in with only quibbles, perhaps we could be done in a week. I hope so, because I'm just about all Joaned-out.  Between JKR and Joan, I hardly look forward to what awaits at Andrew Jackson, and expect Josquin to be at least pleasant !! What is the deal with the J letter ?!?  Bst, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  04:18, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I took a peek at the Jackson article. I agree. It's needs to rest outside of the oven for a bit to cool down, and then- as you said- it needs quite a bit trimming first. Looks like there's plenty of meat for the non-vegetarian, but until we can get the fat cut away, there's not much room for verifying citations. I'm available to help out in a supporting role, if/when you think its useful. And as to Joan: I've been "Joaned out" for quite a long while now. It is an adventure very different than what I expected when I agreed to become part of the process. Wtfiv (talk) 04:55, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we'll all remember The Great J Year! Bst, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  05:54, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Omg! The Js—how bizarre!  Aza24  (talk)   05:57, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * maybe we should add V to the list ? Hang in there; you are appreciated. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  04:16, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Such pessimism! Josquin is all yours now, by the way—not trying to nag, just wasn't sure if that was clear.  Aza24  (talk)   06:18, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

An idea I had...
Let me know if this sounds silly or unfeasible... I had an idea to kind of combine the process at Peer Review with A-Class and B-Class to create an entirely new process. This would make A-class an official process, which fixes the issue of differing requirements and the resulting lack of trust in the article ratings. We also already have built in assessment criteria for B-class in talkpage templates currently and a B-class review icon at Template:Icon. This would also allow for a couple of stepping stones... One between GA and FA and the other between C (possibly start articles as well) and GA. I believe we would have three types of reviews, including: All-purpose (current PR), B-Class, and A-Class.

The B-class review would be the least strict and would only require the involvement of one editor (more are obviously welcome to join in). A person would list the article for review given that it is at least a start-class article. The reviewer would then review the article in its entirety against the 6 B-class criteria and provide advice to the editor to help them get the article to B-class. There would be no set time period for the improvement of the article as long as improvements are continuing to take place and both parties wish to continue. It would then be promoted to B-class if the reviewer believes the criteria have been satisfied. This would essentially be a less-strict review that would work to improve an article up to B-class. I think it would be helpful for newer editors to get them used to writing without expecting them to put in GA-level work immediately as is often the case of the current PR.

The A-class review would require two or more editors to review. A person would list the article as an A-class candidate. Other editors would then review the article against the A-class criteria (formal criteria would be somewhere between GA and FA). The process would be divided into two parts. The first stage would be initial reviews, kind of a workshop per se, where no support or opposes would be declared given that the article is reasonably close to A-class (obviously exceptions would apply). The reviewers would leave comments and work with the editor to improve the article. This workshop would last around 10-14 days or longer if it is constructive. If half of the involved parties (minimum either the two reviewers or one reviewer and the nominator) signal they are ready to move on to the next stage, a coordinator would open a subsection where people could either support or oppose the candidacy with their rationale. Once a sufficient period of time had passed, the coordinator would judge whether or not consensus exists for promotion to A-class.

The general purpose review would be similar to how PR is currently, but would focus on articles that are already at B-class or A-class and hadn't been reviewed for a while. What are your thoughts on this? Noah Talk 17:49, 19 September 2022 (UTC)


 * The idea has merit, and at User:Iridescent's talk page it could probably be explored further (Iri thinks the whole assessment scheme needs to be re-done), but there just aren't even enough reviewers at any level anymore for any quality assessment to really work. GA is a joke, FAC is suffering from lack of review that has seriously impacted the quality of what is coming out, and FAR doesn't have enough reviewers to process as many FARs as we'd like ... so anything that needs more review ... ???? ... I don't see how it will work, other than perhaps becoming just another thing like GA, which unless you have a top-quality reviewer, is as worthless as the paper it's written on.  Bst, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:14, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I really do agree that the whole process could use some revamping. I was wanting to use existing resources for the reviews rather than invent a whole new thing. I will discuss it with Iridescent. I haven't had much too time to myself as of late unfortunately. Noah Talk 21:40, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

On writing big articles
Hi Sandy, hope all is well. I'm fresh off of a fairly lengthy Wikibreak (and now excited to have 8 million volumes at my fingertips) and am thinking about digging into a big project. I'm itching to write a more important article in my area of knowledge. Potentially looking at Wilfred Owen. Getting the books won't be the issue, but do you have suggestions on how I might go about it without messing something up big time/getting crazy overwhelmed? Most of the articles I've written are not super high impact, and none of them have substantial numbers of full-length books written on them. No worries if you're too busy to respond on this count. Thanks for all you do. It makes me happy to see you around and know how much you care about the encyclopedia. Be well, Eddie891 Talk Work 03:02, 16 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Less is more. It's better to have a concise 6-7,000 word article than a sprawling 15,000 word one. Don't try to read everything out there, it's not necessary. Just start from the most recent and highest rated works and go from there. For example, for the Armenian genocide article I started with one book, which was the best rated overview, and fleshed it out from there with other sources. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:44, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Eddie, I agree with Buidhe. For example, look at the recent Joan of Arc and J. K. Rowling, who were held to 8,000 words.  The art is sometimes knowing what to leave out as much as what to put in.  In the medical realm, we have a semi-standard structure that lends itself well to WP:SS, so that if you can think in advance in terms of a sub-article structure like we have (eg, Tourette syndrome, management of Tourette syndrome, History of Tourette syndrome, Societal and cultural aspects of Tourette syndrome), that will help you approach the sources.  For example, I didn't need to read thousands of journal articles on management of TS to be able to summarize to the level of the most recent, highest quality sources.  You might also want, ,  and  to give you some suggestions on structure.  The main thing we saw at J. K. Rowling is that forcing ourselves to focus on only the best sources helped keep the article trim. Think first maybe at conducting a review of the review of the sources ?  Congrats on access to the big library and have fun with the writing! Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  11:55, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Main Page discussion
Since you expressed a view on the decision to run Elizabeth II as TFA yesterday, you may be interested in the discussion here Wehwalt (talk) 15:50, 20 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Yep, I've been watching. Remembering the absurdity of the concerns over the Buruli ulcer image, I've decided (for now) not to further it.  People just gotta complain on the main page 'cuz they could all do better, right?  You've got the highest TFA-viewed ever, someone's going to complain, and you can expect more than typical for such a significant international event.  Need I repeat my feelings about DYK?  And there was a thread indicating that ITN would change their entry on TFA day; why didn't they?  The idea that we would not run an FA this significant on the day is outlandish.  We can't control what silliness DYK engaged in that did lead to overkill ... but I'd love to see someone try to solve the perennial DYK issue. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:50, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah I thought it was overblown, but then I saw the DYK spread, which is kind of ridiculous. It's arguably a problem that the main page is assembled from processes that have very different groups contributing and not really cross-collaborating, but I'd say it's low on the list of problems with the main page overall or DYK specifically. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 19:05, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile, "anyone who can edit" is aiming their ire at TFA, when it should be aimed at ITN and DYK. But there's no there there, so it's easier to target TFA. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:06, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Password resets
If you are dying to know who sent the password resets, I can take a look. They get logged in the CU table. -- Guerillero  Parlez Moi 12:13, 14 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Thx, Guerillero. What would we gain?  That is, what would change (other than people knowing to keep strong password protection)?  I seriously doubt it's anything other than a LTA attempting to sow discord, so I'm thinking not to give it any more fuel.  But I need to be better educated.  I'm thinking that 360 attempts in an hour is not a very good automated attempt ?  That if it were a serious hacker, the number would be higher?  But I'm out of my depth here ... Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * PS, at this stage, I'm not so worried because it has stopped. It seems as if someone was hoping they'd find an easily uncoverable password? I don't think 360 attempts in an hour is a highly effective attack ???  It seems like some LTA follows controversial arbcases and RFAs, and then yes, as GeneralNotability said, attempts to sow discord. (And one participant at the talk page where I raised the issue to make others aware was happy to further that attempt.)   On the other hand, it's quite irritating how other RFA participants converted what I did not say in to what they think I did say, while twisting my main concern into oblivion, and any attempt to get back to what I did say at this stage will just be bludgeoning. Moving on ... that's Wikipedia :). At some point after the RFA ends, I'm going to ask, who is familiar with my prose (if we can call it that :) if he understood my point was never what it was contorted in to. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:53, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I understood what you were trying to say, yes. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:05, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thx, BK ... I will always strongly oppose any candidate who gives an appearance from the outset of ticking off the boxes en route to RFA, or what we called in the olden days "climbing the RFA greasepole". Because I linked to Spartaz's concerns, that became twisted into a sock accusation, which I never made.  Can't fix that now, so oh well. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

No hard feelings
I've gone back and forth about reaching out to you, and I know there's a whole thing about discussions and reaching out during an RFA, but after your last post I wanted to let you know that I don't hold any ill will towards you. You're stating your beliefs and feelings, and you're more than entitled to that. You don't know me, and as far as I can recall, we haven't interacted, so you're left with reading. I'm disappointed that I come across as admin-seeking to you, but I can understand how you see it that way. However the RFA turns out, I honestly don't hold anything against you.

On the topic of EC/MF, by the time I became aware of him, he was already going by Eric Corbett. I didn't see any of the earlier stuff, except what I read in diffs that were linked in the discussions at the time. I also respect that your concerns over admin conduct in that situation inform your views at RFA.

Hopefully we'll meet again under less pitched circumstances. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:55, 15 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Thx for reaching out SFR; most appreciated. I'd offer to someday tell you more stories of why I have such a strong take on the damage admins can do, but lately I've found that even revisiting just one of those (many) stories leaves me feeling dejected for days, and rehashing is not helpful.  Best of luck to you, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:06, 15 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Sandy, I saw this, and thought you might perhaps be interested in an experience of my own, from when I was a very new editor: . (Not that I want to make you dejected of course, but misery can make company, as they say.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:52, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wow. And to think that by then (2009), she had even toned down after the more frontal attack on me and Tim Vickers, and had been reined in by two arbcases (the "we admins" incident was 2007 and there were two arbcaases in 2008), yet was still that haughty ... amazing.  She was a very accomplished POV warrior, btw.  The "dejection" problem for me is that this is by no means an isolated case ... it's when I start ticking off all the things done to me and FAC and FA people, via abusive admins and socks, that I end up in that "need a break" place.  It was just one word that occurred in the Joan of Arc FAR, that reminded me of how I walked unwittingly in to a jar of scorpions for offering to help out at one article, and ended up paying a high price.  I was always cordial, and I treated her noms with complete impartiality at FAC and FAR, but I am impressed to see the attitude still in 2009. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:16, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Shortly after that happened, I met Tim in real life (at a scientific conference). (He's a lovely person.) I asked him if he could give me advice about a problem I was having on-wiki, and I said the username of who it was about. His first response was an incredible sigh, just a sigh. Although I don't like to speak ill of the dead, that incident came awfully close to driving me off the project entirely, but I'm glad that it didn't. I consider it an early accomplishment of mine that I (almost single-handedly) NPOVed the articles on animal rights and medical research, but it was a slog that lasted close to a year. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:04, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Trypto, as I indicated in that post a few weeks ago to Victoriaearle, I find even being reminded of all of this still incredibly painful. Mostly because it wasn't only SV: it's a pervasive part of the admin culture that affects some admins (and there are many many fine admins without whom we couldn't do what we do), but it is again affecting my morale too deeply for me to keep talking about it. Adminship is a big deal.  Cabals do exist.  Tim Vickers was as fine as they come.  I miss Tim.  I miss Mally.  I miss Cla68.  I miss Gimmetrow.  I miss Raul.  I miss the FAC that several socks destroyed. And this thread, while not a problem in and of itself, led me to have to discover tripe like this, which is at the core of the whole matter, is so repugnantly offensive, and is what so increasingly demoralizes. Let's drop this topic for now; some day, I may write an essay on Why Adminship Matters, but that day is not today.  I want to get back to work at FAR and overcome the taste in my mouth about that gross misrepresentation of how groups of socks destroyed FAC, with assistance from a later-disgraced ex-arb. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * SandyGeorgia, I know it's painful but one day I would like to hear about these editors you admire so much. I was actually moved to tears over what you wrote in the RfA. -- A Rose Wolf  17:48, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I dunno if I have that in me ARoseWolf; I am so sickened by this RFA that I have to contemplate what next. We seem to going back to how things were a decade ago, and talking about it is just salt in the wounds. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:09, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I miss Eric .. a lot. I miss Karanacs. I miss Brian. I wish I had more time to help you with FAR... but I don't .. and I'm insanely busy right now (and into November) with the annual game-job-crunch. But I couldn't let that FAC question/answer about MF pass... ugh. Ealdgyth (talk) 18:11, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I know :) It was intended as a get-out-jail-free card, and instead, turned into another painful reminder of just where things stand. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:15, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * And then we have Arbitration/Requests/Motions. Ealdgyth (talk) 18:51, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's like a natural cycle ... a lot of the newer editors don't know how bad things were, so can't appreciate current concerns. Add in that contributors these days see no reason to even pretend to know how to generate top or decent content, and even openly brag about that. Than add the number of functionaries or senior editors who had front row seats for the cabalism, but deny it's a problem. Then add that Wikipediocracy, which was once a Wikipedia criticism site where you could be sure that abusive admins would be called out, is now a Wikipedia boosterism site, and ... yikes ... we end up with a power structure in charge calling shots over people who don't even pretend to generate good content.  So ... why work for good content anyway. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:13, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * As someone who had/has no clue who many of the aforementioned people are, I agree with being unable to appreciate current concerns. Especially with regards to editor conflict or tension; unlike policies/guidelines, that's not going to be documented in an easily readable form. With regards to contributors unable to produce good content, perhaps you're being hyperbolic. We do have new blood who really know how to write—check out Tulainyo Lake, Fawn Fire (2021), Mosquito Fire, all excellent articles written and maintained by a newer editor. Idk, I'm not so grim. Ovinus (talk) 21:05, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Good to hear an optimistic perspective, Ovinus! Sandy Georgia (Talk)  21:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * some impressive work there ... do you know that editor well enough to inquire if they might look at Featured article review/Yellowstone fires of 1988/archive1? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  21:47, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yep, done. Ovinus (talk) 21:57, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I hope you change your mind in the future but I understand the pain you have been caused. I wouldn't want you to relive it just to satisfy my desire to learn. However, you have a story and that story is very much important. Maybe not to Wikipedia so much as this is an encyclopedia and even the community around it is geared towards the encyclopedia. Yet, we are human and we form bonds with other humans. That is as inescapable as the very atmosphere around this earth for our human bodies without some assistance. It really doesn't matter what the rules say or how hard they try to curtail it. With that said, the bonds you have formed over these years are a critical element in the makeup of who you are. It is on these bonds that our LifeSong's are exchanged, note by note. It's beautiful, joyful at times. painful at others. You carry those Song's with you and have integrated a portion of each one into your own. That's something to be celebrated and cherished even as painful as it may be. You are a beautiful collection of notes and colors. I see and hear you. -- A Rose Wolf  15:20, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * How kind of you. You made me feel brave enough to tell only one of my stories.  I hope I don't live to regret it, because my personal medical diagnoses should be nobody's business, but now they are. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:19, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * And now I've added one other little bit. And find that talking about it still doesn't leave me in a good place.  SG, the "erotomanic stalker" who was hauled to ArbCom because of an admin who sought to be rid of my strong sourcing on FAs. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:15, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Sherman
I thought you'd find it interesting after the memoirs use debates at the Sherman FAR that a scholarly book by Albert Castel has mentioned several times that Sherman's memoirs contain misleading or inaccurate points in certain places either to make himself look better or others look worse. pp. 297-299 is particularly damning. Hog Farm Talk 04:55, 23 September 2022 (UTC)


 * You didn't give me the name of the book ... ? We didn't need a scholar to tell us that :) Sandy Georgia (Talk)  04:57, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the best way is an article Memoirs of General William T. Sherman (shocked it doesn't exist yet!) with info on their accuracy, influence, reception, etc. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  06:09, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Brilliant!, a worthy GA ! Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  13:32, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't have the sources for it now, and Castel's book (Decision in the West) isn't so much approaching it from a general level as just basically stating "this is what Sherman said in his memoirs, here are other eyewitnesses who discredit this, here are blatant errors in Sherman's story, it appears this was written only to discredit Hooker". I'll see if I can pull the stuff together in the future, but I thought it was worthwhile noting that we've got a RS stating pretty much exactly what we all expected was the truth. Hog Farm Talk 13:43, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * And it's not only the heavy reliance on the Memoirs, but the use of other sources that merely regurgitate them. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  13:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * At some point, Jefferson Davis and Winfield Scott Hancock will need looked at, probably by me. Hancock need some work - accumulation of junk, image clutter, etc. and seems to focus too heavily on Gettysburg.  Davis is years newer of a FA, but I'm honestly a bit more concerned about it myself.  The inconsistent citation styles are a major red flag, some of the web sources are sketchy, and the print source choice is not great.  Strode is heavily used, but isn't great because he basically worshipped Davis.  Patrick 1944 is the sole source for almost an entire section, and while I'm not familiar with that specific author, this isn't a subject to be preferentially using 80-year old sources on.  Coulter is only used a few times but should be generally avoided.  I don't have a bio of Hancock and only have William C. Davis' bio of Jeff Davis at the moment.  At some point when I'm not burnt out in RL and a day away from retaking part #2 of the CPA exam I'd be willing to try to fix Hancock, but Davis will take a monumental effort.  Should probably notice Davis at some point, but I don't have the energy for that fight today.
 * My goal is to eventually check over the 73 remaining ACW FAs - I'm responsible for 20 of them, Hindman has been overhauled but needs prose work I think, ironclad warship has been noticed (but shouldn't go to FAR imo until USS Missouri clears), and a few of the others are low-risk. Hog Farm Talk 14:49, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, but ... ... we still have to get through Jackson (and four more with probably same there) ... for now, Wtfiv is chipping away at Jackson at least. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:08, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, my gut feeling is that Davis is going to be a trainwreck once you dig into it due to how much the lost cause myth is imbedded into the pop- history books for dads and the pre-1960 scholarship. -- In actu (Guerillero)  Parlez Moi 15:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That 2013 Davis FAC is from way before my time as an editor (I was in junior high at the time). That FAC was yikes ... not even really a source review. The promoted version is an even heavier proportion of Strode, Patrick, and Coulter. The worst may actually be Dodd 1907 - I can't even fathom why that would be used as a citation. This is what happens when you don't have a real source review. Hog Farm Talk 17:25, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

New message from Jo-Jo Eumerus
Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi
How are you and your husband feeling? I was (much more briefly) sick myself and took a break from editing; turns out it wasn't COVID. Anyway, found another example of a bloated lead, at September 11 attacks. I trimmed it a bit:, but in hindsight I could've just reverted to the GA version (Special:Diff/671152132), which is pretty good. Incredible how these leads can accrue detail!

Also hoping to get back to the Planet FAR soon, maybe workshop some different article structures.... Ovinus (talk) 06:18, 11 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi, ! I've been busy with a fundraising project and somehow completely overlooked your message.  We weathered COVID just fine, thankfully.  I'm glad you're well, and happy to see you as well.  I have neglected FAR for almost two weeks now, but should be able to get back to it next week.  But then after that, I have a vacation/trip coming up where I'll have very limited internet, and after that, houseguests for an extended period.  Maybe we ca actually hope to get planet finished up!  Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  11:58, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Josquin des Prez
Ok, I'm on it. Should be able to have a look later today. Thanks for thinking of me. John (talk) 14:24, 16 September 2022 (UTC)


 * John, your edits are most appreciated. I should note that this bot run has made some awkward choices re linking, creating huge inconsistencies in the article. For instance, now Louis XII and Glarean are not linked at all for the first mention in the body, many publishers are unlinked from the previous scheme of linking them every time, etc.  Aza24  (talk)   18:15, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Medicine Newsletter - October 2022
Ajpolino (talk) 03:32, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Content Assessment
What do you think of the idea I have been working on here? Noah Talk 18:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)


 * It's a lot to look at, and I've been tied up for two weeks with a fundraiser ... but any big proposal in the content assessment area is going to have a rough go gaining consensus. Many people would rather it went away altogether and have grown comfortable with the idea that 95% of Wikipedia is crap. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:34, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Basically, the gist of my idea is to reduce the categorization from 7 tiers to 5; stub, start, and C would comprise "Average", B becomes "Decent", GA = Good, A becomes Very Good, and FA becomes excellent. This means we would only be focusing on rating the articles that have a quality above normal. A-class would have official criteria rather than it being vague like it is now. I believe keeping the B and A-class (albeit renamed) would be useful in the case of newcomers since it gives them a stepping stone between the major assessments. I think only having three would be too little and wouldn't offer newer editors much room to improve between the ratings. It is pretty much either write up to GA or your work is inadequate, which I think is not the precedent we want to set. Ratings are likely more motivational for newer editors so seeing their work go up from average to decent could have an impact on whether or not they continue. I know I found motivation in getting articles to higher ratings when I was new. Topics would now be Good, Very Good (would include most featured topics now), and Excellent (current featured topics that are entirely featured). I also want to change peer review to focus primarily on being a workshop for getting articles to B-class and A-class while maintaining the option to review for any class (such as GA and FA) to help newcomers hone their writing skills. I want to make draft and needed-class standard ratings for pre-article process; emphasizing the importance of marking subjects needing articles as "needed" rather than the standard redirect. It would make it much easier for others outside projects to find articles that need to be created if they are categorized as such rather than trying to find if such a list exists on a random project page. Lastly, I want article importance to be changed to priority since it would be less bitey for newcomers. I don't think this last item would be too much to ask for. It looks like it is more than what it actually is because I am going into much detail to explain all the changes. This would be divided up into multiple RfC questions if it were to be posed since obviously importance should be separate from class ratings. Noah Talk 17:20, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, Noah, I don't mean to sound short, but real life suddenly got really complicated, and I don't have a lot of time. The basic problem is that we don't have enough editors writing or assessing content to begin with, so any scheme that expects more assessment is unlikely to happen.  There are increasingly fewer editors on the Project who care about generating top content, much less assessing whether articles are A, GA or FA. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  01:06, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

What makes me wonder why I try sometimes
. A bunch of unsourced text that's added where it looks like it's sourced, but it's not. And while some of it was correct, much of it is contradicted by the source - besides what I called out in my reversion edit summaries, the crap about sundown at 7:25 is directly contradicted by the cited pages of Cozzens. Eventually I'm going to miss an addition like that and get lit up for source-text integrity issues. Hog Farm Talk 22:05, 2 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I've noticed this on my watchlist a bunch too—particularly with composer FAs. Is there a policy, essay or anything one can link to in an edit summary?  Aza24  (talk)   23:03, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Only thing I'm aware of is WP:FAOWN, which would theoretically help with the composers, but not for McDowell. Hog Farm Talk 00:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:BURDEN: The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article. WP:SNEAKY kind of applies, but that's assuming bad faith. It'd be nice to have an essay on this specific subject. But if sources are offline it's probably reasonable to first assume lack of clue, and ask the editor directly whether they have access to the source. Ovinus (talk) 00:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:STICKTOSOURCE as a subset of NOR might be somewhat easy use, just because the pipe reads so closely to what you're trying to convey Eddie891 Talk Work 02:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Luckily a tool like WhoWroteThat can prove that you were not responsible for the addition. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  00:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

One big general catch up post ...  I understand the frustration! Imagine how often it happens in medical articles where it's dangerous, and then you have to make a trip to a medical library to get the actual journal article to figure out if the edit was valid. It's tiresome for sure. I installed WhoWroteThat back when I found the massive fraud going on with "journals" that lifted the entire contents of dementia with Lewy bodies (and other articles), almost entirely written by me. I spent weeks investigating with the Copyright office in Washington D.C., intending to go after the "journals" and get them shut down. I had hoped I could use the WhoWroteThat tool to apply for a copyright, where one has to specifically state what words were written by whom. I found that the tool gives me no way to reproduce the entire page, showing what I wrote, in such a way that I could apply for a copyright. It only allowed me to capture screenshots, but gave me no way to produce an overview PDF or anything of that nature in a useful format. I gave up. And somewhere along the way, when cleaning up my computer, it got un-installed and now I can't make it install again. Pardon my whine :) Letting know where that ended up.  Hog Farm and  I have been considerably waylaid with real life issues and am despairing at ever being able to catch up, and had completely forgotten about the HUGE mess that I found at Sybil Ludington, Henry Ludington and Ludington family last fourth of July, until I was reminded at Good article reassessment/Henry Ludington/1; now I'm sorry I missed all of those ANI discussions, which I have just read.   I know it's too late for my input to be of any use, but in the case of Ludington, there was a somewhat deceptive use of a non-independent source, because Coldwell indicated it was a Harvard publication in the citations, when it was self-published by the family.  There was a HUGE mess throughout the Revolutionary War and Ludington articles that I spent weeks cleaning up back in July, when I brought it to Hog Farm's attention, but I have been so busy of late that I completely missed the ANI on Coldwell. I owe you all feedback on FARs and peer review (Josquin, Wallace, H. D., Farseer Trilogy); I can only ask for your patience, as I seem to be in a "when it rains, it pours" real-life cycle, and I am not seeing light at the end of the tunnel. O-D, if you have to move forward on your PR without my feedback, please do, but if you can wait 'til the weekend, I might be able to get to it. Don't hesitate to ping me again if timing is critical. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  11:06, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks Sandy. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:33, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You are constantly amazing to me. Thanks for all you do. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:13, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No worries, it can wait. Thanks. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 13:29, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm disappointed but not surprised to see yet another Coldwell article has glaring issues. Thanks for identifying them. As of now he appears to have stopped editing entirely following the GAN/DYKN ban passing overwhelmingly. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:05, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * the Sybil Ludington debacle (a laudatory account self-published by the family) fed a substantial internet meme and tourism promotion about her being the unrecognized female Paul Revere, leading to all sorts of publicity around the 4th of July about how women get short shrift ... when Sybil Ludington's ride looks to be a legend that is entirely sourced to Henry's grandchildren. I am so sorry that I missed the ANI or I would have brought this up ... it was throughout tons of articles from the Revolutionary War period.  I think I got most of it by following "What Links Here", but it was extensive. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:16, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I dropped the ball on Ludington myself - was gonna go through it heavily when you pointed it out to me months ago, but never did. I've been crazy busy with work since June, and I keep thinking I'm almost through it.  There's only so long I can keep going on sweet tea and gas station pizza.  I need to look back over that sometime, but don't know when. Hog Farm Talk 03:05, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * HF, that stuff'll send you to an early grave! I've never heard the phrase "gas station pizza" before, but just thinking of it makes me nauseous! I think Sybil is OK now, and since it's not a GA, it's not high on the priority list of all that has to be fixed with DC edits. The FA you might want to look at is Battle of Ridgefield, but it was not written by DC (rather ) and I think I got it cleaned up as well.  The Sybil non-RS story was in about a dozen articles, but the rest of them aren't GAs. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:48, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll try to look over Ridgefield this coming week, then. From a quick look, the age of the sources is a bit concerning - of the 45 distinct references, about 25 are to sources from before 1930, as well as hmdb which is thoroughly unreliable.  The one source I spot-checked is not encouraging - the source for They also incorrectly reported that Colonel Lamb was killed; his injuries were severe enough that he appeared to be dead on the field is the British field report claiming Lamb was dead, and makes no reference to severity of injuries or the fact that this is incorrect. I'll probably try and spot-check Battle of Corydon before I do a in-depth dive into Ridgefield though. Hog Farm Talk 22:48, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Source-to-text concerns in FAs

 * Ugh. Worldcat does suggest that there's two editions of Horwitz, and mine is a "revised edition", but neither of the Worldcat ones have the date given for Horwitz in the article.  Conway is more concerning, because there seems to have only been one edition of Conway.  A bit concerning in light of Featured article review/Battle of Tippecanoe/archive1. Hog Farm Talk 00:50, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There's eight FAs there, too. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  00:57, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I took a look at all eight FACs and saw several things that caused me enough concern to take a deeper look ... so next I looked at Eli Lilly, where I found multiple instances (in fact everything I checked) that failed verification. I can't take this on until at best later in November ... Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  01:31, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Same; there's no way I'm going to be able to do a deeper dive for at least three weeks. Hog Farm Talk 01:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's one example (I found more). This version of Madison is the same as the once cited when the FAC was passed, and still today.  When the FAC was passed, the article said "In 1890, Lilly founded the Commercial Club and was elected as its first president"; the article still says that. The source only says he was the driving force behind organizing the Club ... nothing about first president that I can find. I found more than one instance of similar, only checking Madison. And from the first two FACs, I have concerns about the rigor of the reviews.  We will need to take a deeper dive; I just don't have time until after guests leave mid-November.  Hopefully someone else will start looking. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  02:12, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * In fact, almost everything from page 5 of Madison fails verification. I wish I hadn't seen this just before I'm leaving on vacation. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  02:17, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Wow have a look at page 1 of Madison re "crack battery" and compare that to what is in the article. Way way way far off the mark; I think a priority deep dive is needed here. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  02:30, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Lilly's article can't even get basic facts right: His battery was instrumental in several important battles, including the Battle of Hoover's Gap in June 1863 and in the Second Battle of Chattanooga and the Battle of Chickamauga in September 1863 - Second Chattanooga was fought in August 1863, not September 1863. The claim of Second Chattanooga being an "important battle" is bull hockey; the CWSAC rated it as "D"-class importance, which is essentially those that were mainly of local importance.  For comparison, other battles rated at the same importance level include the absolute non-entities of Battle of Dry Wood Creek and Battle of Roan's Tan Yard. I'm going to go ahead and list Corydon at FARGIVEN, but I'm so far behind there's no way I'm getting to the others right now. Hog Farm Talk 02:46, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't overstate the bad feeling I have about this, after looking at Eli Lilly ... this finding could not have come at a worse time though ... Sandy Georgia (Talk)  02:56, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I've started a discussion here; hopefully others will pitch in while I'm on vacation. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:21, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Three questions
Hello! I've decided to take on my first medical article to bring to GA, long COVID. Still in the early phases of familiarising myself with the intricacies of MEDRS and the MOSMED, and collecting RSs. I had a few questions
 * To what extend does MEDRS apply to further reading? I assume the barrier is lower because further reading doesn't support specific text?
 * Is there a script or another automatic way to get the citations in the Vancouver style?
 * See here Graham Beards (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Femke (talk) 13:31, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm aware I may be unduly influenced by patient advocacy literature. I've edited articles before where I've had strong opinions, so I know the general ways to tackle my own potential biases, but I wonder if there is specific advice for editing about editing medical articles where you have the specific illness?


 * Hi, Femke ... that's quite an undertaking! But I'm sure you're up to the task ... more later, but for now ...
 * Most of your sources (theoretically) will be found on Pubmed ... here's the search engine where you can find the PMID: Pubmed search engine
 * And here's the tool for generating a vancouver format citation template from a PMID. It sometimes misses on MOS:PAGERANGE so you may have to manually make sure all ranges are complete: The Boghog PMID template (formerly Diberri)
 * And here's some old but still relevant info on finding MEDRS sources: Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches
 * Also, generally, it would be grand to have these excellent editors on board:, ,  and   I'm having a hard time answering directly your Further reading question .... I guess I'd want to see an example of what you might include, as I can imagine scenarios where some of the patient advocacy literature could be dicey, and I suppose it's a matter of consensus what to include. As one example, see the link I added at dementia with Lewy bodies about emergency room treatment.  I put it there, rather than using it in the article, as I thought adding it would breach NOTADVICE.  In general terms, I was roundly attacked once for my editing of an article about a condition my husband had (prostate cancer) where several very well established editors had added incorrect, dated and POV content to the article, and reverted me when I corrected it to recent, neutral and accurate info (that they weren't aware of), then claimed my COI was influencing my editing (!?!) in spite of me having the most recent sources, so I think the more other editors you have on board, the better.  If your content is veering off track because of your own experience with long COVID, you'll have at least five other sets of eyes who are accustomed to writing at the FA level, and will help generate consensus.   may also want to get on board ... Bst, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:15, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That's very helpful, thanks. PubMed is quite a bit more intuitive than Google Scholar, and it's convenient that it omits less reputable journals (Scholar even includes some non-peer-reviewed magazines..). Must have been doubly frustrating to be attacked about your editing, given your husbands health. Sorry to hear that.
 * It's a large undertaking, so this is going to take a while. I've been reading a lot of primary sources already, so hope I will pick up on the remaining jargon in the MEDRS sources quickly. About further reading: I'm having to remove, rather than add articles for now. Femke (talk) 18:16, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was another of those painful episodes in my Wikipedia history, with very real consequences. When my husband's PSA twice doubled and his physician told him not to pay attention to it because of the "harms" of PSA testing, I checked Wikipedia's articles and found that the text saying same was added by an editor of certain repute, so I trusted it (remember, I don't have full journal access), and also counseled my husband to ignore his escalating PSA.  Only when his PSA had AGAIN doubled two years later did I dig in to do my own research, discovered Wikipedia content was wrong, and with my husband now in an advanced state of prostate cancer, I was furious and felt it was my fault.  Yes, I believed Wikipedia because an editor I trusted (then) had added the content.  My correct and updated edits to the articles were reverted; my tone on talk was called out, as I was admittedly furious, but the entire suite of articles still contains the POV that discounts PSA testing, even in obvious cases like my husband's, where the cancer could have been treated before it reached an advanced stage.  And we had quite a miserable time during his radiation treatment, although now he's fine with the cancer apparently in remission.  I think you'll be fine in spite of a COI, as I don't expect interference from such editors in this day and age (one of those editors is now banned, and was one of Wikipedia's nastiest), but having an excess of good medical editors on board will be to your long-term benefit. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:28, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Wow, I'm so sorry this all happened, SandyGeorgia! That sounds crazy. @Femke, I wish I had more time these days for another GA collaboration with you. I'd love to help with the copyediting when the article is ready for it - please give me a shout then. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 21:48, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * :). I should add, for Femke, that an emphasis on journal-published sources, over whatever latest trend the CDC and NIH are promoting, would probably be a good thing. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  21:54, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * FYI, CADTH has published some PubMed search strings for COVID topics. I'm not aware of a string specifically for long COVID in PubMed syntax, but it would be fairy easy to translate the UAlberta version if you're interested. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:21, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That's sounds horrible, SG :(.
 * Those filters sounds really useful! I've been searching all these synonyms seperately, and there are just too many names for it. Femke (talk) 18:34, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Copyright question
Sandy, I know you're gone for several weeks yet, so this is directed as much for the talk page stalkers as anything else. For months, I've been thinking that the ultimate Civil War TFA would be Siege of Vicksburg on the 4th of July of an even decadal anniversary of 1863 - next July 4th will be the 160th anniversary of the surrender.

My plan is to do the rewriting in my userspace, and then move back into the articlespace when I'm done - it's currently a (somewhat deficient) GA, and I don't want to have it hanging around in a half-finished state while I take weeks on this herculean task. When I moved it to my userspace, I left a copied within edit summary pointing to where the text came from. What will I need to do when I move it back into the articlespace to keep compliant with WP:CWW? Hog Farm Talk 13:37, 17 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi, HF ... I have internet at this hotel ... heading out soon for the day, and my understanding is next two locations have no wifi in rooms. I have not checked and could be wrong on this, but my understanding is that no CWW attribution is needed for a case like this, as long as you will be the only editor in your sandbox. That is, when you copy the rewrite back to the article, it will ALL be your writing, from your sandbox, so no CWW attribution is needed, as no one but you will need attribution and the only changes you copy back will be attributed to you when you copy them back.  At any rate, if you want to leave a full path, when you copy over the rewrite, you just add an edit summary that says copied from the name of the sandbox. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  13:46, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi . When you copy the updated material into the mainspace article, you need to at least note the user page it was copied from in the edit summary (just like you did when copying to the userspace page). You might like to make the connection a bit more noticeable using Template:Copied from at the article talk page. As far as I'm aware, this is not a situation that would require a history merge, but some of SG's other TPWs might know more about what is common for that process. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:46, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think he needs to template the talk page if he's the only one doing the sandbox writing. The rewrite will be fully attributed to him at the point he copies it in ... Sandy Georgia (Talk)  13:49, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Good point! I definitely might be wrong about "you need to", but I'd still go for at least the edit summary note. Future editors combing through the page history for numerous reasons (text-source integrity in particular is a reason I often do so), definitely might appreciate being able to take HF's changes in the chunks likely to be present at the user page. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:52, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Hog Farm: Depending on how busy the article is, we could also do a WP:histmerge once you are done. -- Guerillero  Parlez Moi 13:52, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm glad you enjoyed your vacation!
(t &#183; c)  buidhe  01:08, 24 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Thx! I'll continue to be a bit slow as I have a house full of guests for the next month ... Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  01:18, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Welcome back! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:57, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thx! Sandy Georgia (Talk)  01:58, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear you got back safe! Hog Farm Talk 03:40, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Wonderful trip ... uneventful, and good memories ! Sandy Georgia (Talk)  06:31, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Minneapolis
Greetings, SandyGeorgia. Without getting yourself too involved, is there any way you could weigh in on Owamni at Talk:Minneapolis? Going on nine months now, I'm getting smeared and so is that restaurant. Is this how the Trump GOP plans to win, by hammering falsehoods so often, people believe them? Anyway, I'm on wikibreak until after the election. I'm planning to seek a FAR after Christmas, say in January. I hope if we plan ahead it's possible that you are available then to look things over. Take care and best wishes. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:45, 28 October 2022 (UTC)


 * @SusanLesch: The political tangent here in completely unhelpful to our goal of building an encyclopedia. -- Guerillero  Parlez Moi 19:31, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Guerillero, I am very sorry for letting that slip. Thank you for quickly catching it. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:01, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * SusanLesch, I agree with Guerillero on the political side note. On the Minneapolis article, I continue to be dismayed at one editor's (over)focus on images when the article overall had more important issues the last time I checked. (I have stopped checking because I find those image discussions so unnecessary and unpleasant). My suggestion is to simply stop engaging the silly image issues, let the images be whatever that editor wants (Not Worth The Hassle), focus on cleaning up the text, and leave images 'til the second to last thing in the FAR (the lead being last).  More relevant is to make sure all sources are high quality, text reflects sources, and the article is thoroughly updated. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  20:23, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, SandyGeorgia. Such good advice, it's taken to heart. I am sorry for my outburst. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:01, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

New message from Jo-Jo Eumerus
Pinging you since you did comment on the second FAC, in case you have suggestions for resolving the issues noted there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:02, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Sedna
I've been vaguely watching the Sedna FAR, but I was only marginally active from the 29th through the 10th so I'm still trying to figure out what's going on at most of the FARs (was only really keeping up with Planet and Missouri). Anywhere with Sedna I could be use? I'm going to be traveling for the Thanksgiving holiday and I've got part 3 of 4 of the CPA exam this weekend, so I can't really commit to any major work on anything right now, but I'll have some spare time after the test this weekend and would like make myself useful. Hog Farm Talk 03:11, 16 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I am completely out of the loop, more swamped IRL than I predicted back when I said November would be busy ... I may be able to start catching up after Thanksgiving, but whew ... having a hard time. I suspect Sedna only needs a complete read through by an uninvolved editor for jargon etc ... and I have no idea on rest of FARs.  Good luck on part 3 and Happy Thanksgiving! Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  03:17, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll try to give it a read through after the exam this weekend. Still need to read through a recent doctoral thesis to reduce the reliance on 1960s and 70s sources in one of my battle articles too.  I feel like I always get busier every month and never less busy. Hog Farm Talk 05:27, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Wishing you a happy busy :( Sandy Georgia (Talk)  06:00, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Comment from Systema2000
Sandy, why are you blocking us putting factual information in the schizophrenia article. The NHS studies referencing skunk are wrong, yet you stil block it. Skunk is one of many strains. Stardawg has higher thc than most skunk derived strains, yet it stil has same affects on scihozprenia. The nhs's usage of the word skunk is wrong and you are propagating that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Systema2000 (talk • contribs) 14:00, 13 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Sources, pls. And this discussion belongs at Talk:Schizophrenia. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  01:37, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Go to your local dispensary, look at the thc ratings on each strain, all of them like 20% thc +. Then go to google, google the lineage of stardaw, see it has zero skunk strain geentics, realise you are wrong. or stay ignorant Systema2000 (talk) 16:50, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Sandy, I'm not feeling inspired to research arbcom candidates so I totally understand if you don't have any recommendations, but I'm interested to hear them if you do. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:12, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems like that makes us two, then. I haven't been able to come up with the interest, either. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:14, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

There are 12 candidates for eight vacancies, so I'm looking for four to leave off. Tamzin is a strong oppose (too new, too much drama); McClenon and BoldLuis are opposes (lack of experience). I am undecided on the fourth oppose, and need to further study Sdrqaz and CaptainEek (would appreciate feedback). The rest are support. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  12:27, 2 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I was only able to find 5 to vote for. Which is actually better than 2020 (or 2018 or 2016 of 2011) for me... I won't vote for someone unless I feel like I can support them, which often leaves me voting "support" for less than the number of candidates we have seats to fill. Ealdgyth (talk) 12:43, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That has been historically true for me as well, but this year I am less bothered by the overall slate. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  13:05, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks
I understand you getting a little steamed about the whole debate re: Sedna (imagine what it's been like for the last 10 years). I only hope that it brings more attention to the issue as I simply have exhausted every tactic I have to deal with it. Just a note: this isn't just about Sedna. 225088 Gonggong, 50000 Quaoar and 90482 Orcus are also at issue here. Serendi pod ous  15:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I see the problem and feel for you ... that is why I unwatched. It is not my FAR, I tried to help, but I see that discussion on talk has been futile, and unless some people change their approach, I see no resolution.  So sorry to see you caught in the middle of this ... unless someone starts putting up proposals for how to resolve the wording, that FAR is going nowhere.  Best of luck to you, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:49, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks
This was very sweet of you. Unfortunately, I'm not active enough these days to remember, so I'll no doubt make the same mistake again some time. Apologies in advance. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 17:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)


 * No problem ... I suspected as much! Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:49, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for all your excellent editing!
Your style is engaging :) Scientelensia (talk) 16:19, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Wow I'm overwhelmed
Sandy, thanks so much for this. I'm also honored. Wadewitz was one of my mentors in my early editing days, so I'm happy to ensure that her legacy here continues, especially in the articles she contributed to. Best to you in this holiday season and happy New Year. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:18, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy new era
Bishzilla and all her socks wish you a happy new Jurassic era!  bishzilla  ROA R R! !   pocket 16:41, 31 December 2022 (UTC).

Belated Happy Holidays !
thank you for the greetings of the season and for thinking of me. Alas and alack, it was not the best of years for me, and I did not/will not find the time to reciprocate with a card of my own, but I hope all enjoy a healthy, happy and peaceful 2023 filled with kindness and joy. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:38, 10 January 2023 (UTC)