User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch109

Dorian's Met

Hey, would you be willing to review the Meteorological history of Hurricane Dorian? It failed the first time due to not enough reviews. I have had it listed for SR for 10 days without feedback. I would appreciate it if you could. Thanks, Noah^Talk 16:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Hyp War...

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hyborian War/archive2 - I'm not able to do a full review, and I've recused for @Ian Rose: so it's in his and your hands. --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:50, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

What, the spot check you mean? I can add it to my list ... long drive home today. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't clear if you felt your own comments had been resolved, and was also concerned that you were waiting on me to weigh in. Just wanted to make sure you knew I wasn't going to have time or the sources to weigh in. Having just dealt with FAC, I'm way past my time to get to other, non-wiki stuff .. heh. --Ealdgyth (talk) 16:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I will add note, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Lopez...

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Joseph A. Lopez/archive1 - can I take it that you reviewed the Spanish language sources and are satisfied with them? --Ealdgyth (talk) 13:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

It has been two months and I cannot remember. I was stalled, waiting for Ergo to add the new source, so forgot what I had done. I will relook this morning. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

And here you go...

User talk:Ealdgyth#Archiving Cymmer Colliery explosion FAC ... might be worthwhile to help the nominator along. Ya'll wanted us to close deficient noms quicker... --Ealdgyth (talk) 20:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Will add note there when home, ipad typing, people need to back you up, they did me, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:55, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth: I am going to sit on my fingers for a few days on this. If I start reviewing, it will be lengthy. And I think the reaction evidences the problem that has taken hold at FAC. Gog the Mild seems to be handling it so far. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I don’t want to upset the nomination more, but they seem to be under the misapprehension that just some random editor closed the nomination...if someone could kindly explain to them what the FAC delegates role is, that’s be nice. --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:13, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I noticed and I intend to do that ... but want to let them cool off some first. Lest I need cooling off! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, Ealdgyth unless you disagree, I will bring it back to your page when I do respond. Perhaps tomorrow? For three reasons: 1) discussion is everywhere (three editor talk pages and article talk) but mostly at Gog’s talk, turning into a discussion of “is Gog a good reviewer”, engaging the “don’t intimidate FAC reviewers” issue, while also engaging 2) passive-aggressive barbs at others, and 3) ignoring the most important factor, which is that we empower Coords to make these decisions, so the discussion should be with you, not Gog. The Buck Stops Here. I will not phrase it that way :) :), but I will point it back to your page. We lost “The Buck Stops Here” factor when they ditched Raul, but with the advent of that damn pingie-thingie, we also lost the FAC community watching and responding on your page, as they did with mine, whenever I was attacked. We need to bring that back. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, thanks. I have been busy this afternoon and have just come back to Wikipedia, or else I may have done/said something myself. I guess that it is now time to see what folk have been up to on my talk page. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

On it this morning, as soon as I am caffeinated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:10, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Bipolar disorder

Let me know how you think this reads.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@Casliber: at the cabin and owe several other people reviews, so it may be a few days before I get to it, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:21, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

PS, just had a quick glance. Are you asking if it is FAC ready? (No.). Or something else? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@Casliber:, I had a look. Not sure what to say ... there are problems of every kind everywhere I look. Not sure what you are questioning specifically, but a top-to-bottom rewrite would not be a bad idea. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

The untarnished truth is fine. Is an article I've worked on and off over the past several years. Figure I may as well give it that final shove and have gone a bit square-eyed looking at it so just needed a bit of a jolt. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I think it is pretty bad ... will spell out more when not on ipad, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Heh, let rip later :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:25, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@Casliber: I hesitate to post on talk there because the amount of work needed is daunting, and it needs one voice/one person to guide the work. Summarizing ... I usually start at the bottom when looking at an article, because few people make it down there ...

Hidden categories

... shows errors

External links

• Childhood bipolar is contentious, but 2017 Goldstein Task Force paper is not in article (how outdated is childhood here, haven't looked)
• Why do we have 2006 NICE guidelines; have they not been updated?
• There's an NIH website in External links (Presumably current) and yet the article cites an archived 1995 NIH page (UGH!)

Further reading

• Look at the dates on these, why are they there? And what are those Wikilibrary links doing there? External.

Footnotes

What the heck are those ?

References

• Just scanning them for dates yields a YIKES. Click on the older ones and see that many of them are citing things that could be to an updated source and could be outdated or wrong.
• Most recent highest quality source I can find is Lancet 2016, Grande, and it's hardly used. (There are multiple recent higher quality reviews hardly used.)
• If you're headed to FAC, they now want (as I agree they always should have) page ranges; see sources at Dementia with Lewy bodies. It's good practice anyway, if you're going to rewrite. But I say rather than page ranges, cite to section names in the journal article-- much easier and more general.
• Just looking at the references, and then viewing the page statistics, and then looking at the prose and content-- all confirm initial impression. This is an article that has been built piecemeal over the years by many different editors, with no one guardian helping it hang together and constantly updating it. There's a bunch of old, useless stuff in there that needs to be cleaned out, best with top-to-bottom rewrite with a stack of best sources at hand.

Society and culture

Oh My Gosh. Needs a subarticle similar to Tourette's to get the cruft out. How are notables chosen? Widespread stigma sourced to 2007. Where's Patty Duke? How is this section constructed ... lots of laypress, and yet, there are reviews. Media portrayals-- out-- cruft/trivia unless mentioned in secondary reviews, do it like TS. Creativity-- completely poor sourcing. This section is dreadful.

History

Starts with a dud catch-all meaningless sentence. Stopped reading right there. Noticed an WP:ENDASH which led me to see WP:EMDASHes in lead, which led me to see a faulty use of hyphen on number range in lead. That is, MOS issues. Not going to explore heart of article in depth when I find this many issues just at the bottom.

Lead

The lead defines hypomania v. mania differently than the body. Lots of stuff in the lead that is nowhere in the body (eg age 25). The "over a period of 20 years" statement makes no sense. And, as found in MOST medical articles of late, the organization of the lead is not optimal. A 2012 source is used throughout the lead.

Content-- skipping about to check a few things

• Entire section on alternative medicine, really?
• Why is there no Classification section? Grande Lancet has one.
• A 2003 study on recovery and recurrence? Followed by a 2005 study ?? This is a helpful nothing burger: "Bipolar disorder can cause suicidal ideation that leads to suicide attempts."
• Disruptive mood dysregulation disorder is controversial-- small mention needed. Aren't there differences in presentation in children that should be mentioned in Signs and symptoms (not sure?) ?
• Prevention, a 2008 source, when there are recent reviews?

Really, Cas, rewrite the whole thing. Good luck with that :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Thx for that. I needed an outside set of eyes for perspective. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:21, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

NB:The footnote is after a discussion with Doc James about catatonia.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:21, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Casliber: I meant the whole Footnotes section-- what are those? Bipolar_disorder#Footnotes Remember over a decade ago, back when we had basically no neuropsych FAs, and we had to build them all, teaching others how complete articles are written? We are right back there again. Basic skills have been lost with the neglect of FAs over the years. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:39, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Squirm sources

Hey Sandy. I added some url links to four of the sources for Squirm. The Monthly Film Bulletin and Los Angeles Times links I do not have any way to access them. They were placed onto the article before I started writing it. I have an application for Newspapers.com but thats pending so that is up in the air. And as for the Baby Boomers and Popular Culture book, I believe User:J Milburn added that one in so he might have access to it. GamerPro64 20:02, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

You can see the chapter here. Happy to help with any other sources if I can. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:30, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks both ... I may be able to get LA Times online through my library ... have a social distancing birthday party for a friend tonight, and will probably tackle that on Sunday, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@GamerPro64: I have to complete two other brief rechecks for Ealdgyth and then will get on this, today. best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:45, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I answered most of your comments and will do more later, assuming they will keep the FAC up. But if not I hope we can continue the effort of get this to Featured Article. GamerPro64 04:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

BFS

Hi, just a word to thank you for your work on Benign fasciculation syndrome - keep up the good work, I for one appreciate it enormously! GPinkerton (talk) 15:14, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

You are welcome! Just starting ... be prepared to be frustrated by the number of typos I make :0 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Memdmarti Sandbox

Can you open my Sandbox? It has the reference to a Book with 3/4 page on Dr. Kistner

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Memdmarti/sandbox#Robert_Kistner — Preceding unsigned comment added by Memdmarti (talk • contribs) 01:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Fabulous, and thank you ... I will compose text for you to add, since I am the one with the COI here ...stay tuned. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

:) Memdmarti (talk) 02:16, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thank you SandyGeorge for going beyond the call on Azziz Memdmarti (talk) 17:24, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

@Memdmarti: thank you so much! I do enjoy helping new editors learn the ropes, and hope you will stick around to lend your ob/gyn expertise ... Wikipedia has long needed to work to retain more medical content experts. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

PS, Ricardo Azziz was too much of a mess to be a valuable learning experience, but I hope Robert Kistner was instructive. I was unaware of his death, or the circumstances. :(

I'll share my Kistner story with you! He met me on a Monday, and operated on Tuesday: he agreed to schedule the OR based on the strength of his knowledge of my Venezuelan ob/gyn, who assured him I needed surgery. After he examined me, he delivered bad news ... showed me a matrix with my age on one axis, stages of endo on the other, and told me I had a 10% chance of fertility. After surgery, I was supposed to stay in Boston for a week, but I got stir crazy and did a very foolish thing ... got on a very long flight after only a week. Not only that, I smuggled a Yorkshire terrier puppy under my arm on to the plane (not something one could get away with today, post 9-11!). Kistner, with 18 staples, left an almost invisible 8- to 10-inch scar, that didn't impede my bikini-wearing at all. Well ... fast forward two years and I am giving birth with an ob/gyn I decidedly Did Not Like because she was ever-too-important, and I end up with a C-section because she was in a hurry to get to the beach for the holidays. So, in the middle of surgery, I hear her gasp and remark to the anesthesiologist that she had forgotten that I had previous surgery! She could not even see the Kistner scar. Lo and behold, I end up with another gross and ugly scar an inch below the beautiful and almost invisible scar left by Kistner. What a difference. He left me well served in a bikini, and she really messed me up. Yea, Kistner.

I never saw him again after his rounds and my discharge ... I called his office to say I was sick of Boston after a week and heading home, and he said I was in good hands with my physician at home. Six months of danazol, six months of waiting, pregnant on the first try (dreadful miscarriage in Argentina while I was on a business trip, nightmare scenario), and first child within two years. Kistner worked wonders on stage IV, over-30 endo. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:54, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, SandyGeorgia for sharing that. I am happy the surgery and your body worked but sorry that even female Ob/Gyns can be twits. Most are better than men at communicating, some are not.

I may have found the original MER-25 (clomid) article but need to read it. It generally takes the library a day or two to send them to me. Memdmarti (talk) 23:23, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Addendum: SandyGeorgia, I remembered that I subscribe to that journal. The article lists no prior citation to MER25, only Tace, a precusor. I will add "Kistner RW, Smith OW. Observations on the use of a nonsteroidal estrogen antagonist: MER-25. II. Effects in endometrial hyperplasia and Stein-Leventhal syndrome. Fertil Steril. 1961 Mar-Apr;12:121-41. doi: 10.1016/s0015-0282(16)34082-1. PMID: 13756428" when I come back to the computer in about an hour. Memdmarti (talk) 23:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

ASRM

Thank you for watching and editing the ASRM page. I finally remembered that I am a non-paying retired (active 1975-2017) member. That means I do not get the hard copy of the journal Fertility and Sterility. That is good for trees, my mailperson, my time needed to move a hard copy almost directly to trash, and landfills. Thank you, Dan Memdmarti (talk) 16:03, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Springer article

Hey, I saw your post on WT:MED and decided to look into the springer article - it's.... very interesting. If you don't have access to it I'm happy to send you the full article. If not, the article does note that the following other articles have been plagiarized from in predatory OA journals: Catamenial pneumothorax, Cocaine, Exome sequencing, Hospital-acquired infection, and Infant colic. The last two were retracted - the first three not. Again, happy to send you the article if you want - it's short but an interesting read. bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I think I got it ... But thanks ! I wrote to the author, who published with dearest Tim Vickers ... maybe we will get some publicity at least, since using almost entire Featured articles, x 3, is shocking. My letters are in the mail, and I will send followup emails in a few days ...SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:01, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

New article

Howdy, I hope all is well with you. If you get a moment and want to look over User:Berchanhimez/sandbox/depot for me, I'd appreciate it. I have not crafted the lede section yet but I'm wondering if it is "complete enough" to go ahead and move to an article so I can start linking from other articles/etc or whether you think it may need some more work first. Thanks in advance if you're able to, and if not no worries - I know you're busy with those "journals" (which seem to be more like copy machines). bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 14:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Berchanhimez: sorry it took me so long! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:35, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Do not worry at all! I assume (well, hopefully logically) that we all have real life jobs and tasks - heck, my mental list of "what I want to improve on wikipedia" is so long I'd be busy for a few months if i spent 80 hours a week on this - but I can't! I still appreciate your edits and please feel free to leave me any comments as always. I know from reading in the news that the medical area on Wikipedia is strict on adherence to guidelines and such, which made me scared to get involved, but the people I've dealt with have been more than nice and helpful - so I intend to keep doing what I can and improving what I'm doing as I go :) bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I was on the long (six-hour) drive to the cabin. When we go to the cabin, I can use the hotspot from the phone in the car to edit from my iPad, but I can't do any serious editing, so while you will see brief edits from me, I can't do anything real. Sorry it took so long, but I think I've done all I can there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Squirm FAC

Hello again. I wanted to apologize for my behavior at the Squirm FAC. I should not have read negative intention into your comment, as you are doing a lot to improve the article and help with the FAC. My comment about not being a reviewer was unnecessary and way too over-dramatic and juvenile. I really should have stepped back from the situation to reflect and better understand everything. I will look through the article and post further copy-editing comments sometime tomorrow. Since I already posted a review to the FAC, I should see it through to the end and try to be as much help as I can possibly be. Again, I want to apologize for that. I hope you are having a wonderful end to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 04:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello Aoba47; I'm glad you stopped by, as I was quite dismayed, yet not wanting to comment further on the FAC, possibly detracting from the task at hand. I thought we had settled everything amicably in our last discussion, so was taken back ... but since this is now Round 2, it is up to ME to be more responsible with my language, as I am often writing from an uncomfortable position due to my back injury, and sometimes do not take great enough care when composing posts. Once again, I too am sorry!

To the task at hand, when I first looked at Squirm, I thought it well prepared for FAC and wanted to get the FAC moving along; once I dug in to the sources, I found there was a lot of very good information in them, so I encouraged GamerPro64 to add more content. Now I am feeling too close to the topic, and just wanting others to look in before I support. So please do lend another critical eye, and if you are able to polish any prose, I think there is enough material in the sources that some content could be worded in a more compelling way. And re-read to see if I requested too much be added, or if you agree with the current scope?

I am also going to hope that Hurricane Noah, whose prose at the Dorian hurricane article is competent, if they would not mind going outside of their usual content area to have a look at Squirm and its FAC, as the Coords are surely wanting more feedback by now. And it is always good to venture outside of one's content area! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for the late response as I wanted to focus on the Squirm review. I have posted suggestions on the prose and additional information that could be incorporated into the article. There is some additional information about the production, and I asked some questions about the reception subsection.

I think that the best way to smooth out the prose would be adding more sentence variety as that would make the information read more like a cohesive narrative and keep the content engaging to readers. Right now, a majority of the sentences have the same or very similar construction types, and parts of the article read rather choppily (if that makes any sense). I agree with your assessment that the prose needs a push to reach the FA standard.

I am sorry to hear about your back injury, and there is no reason to apologize. It was more so a miscommunication and nothing serious. I hope that we can continue to work together in the future, and I'd greatly appreciate any points on how to better review FACs. I have honestly learned a lot just by reading your FAC reviews over the past week.

It really is good to venture outside of one's content area, because non-experts can identify where things are confusing to an unfamiliar reader and may catch things due to this distance from the subject matter. I mostly work on and review entertainment articles, but I should also review outside of my comfort zone. Ideally, there would be a greater scope of subjects in the FAC process (the low number of mathematics FAs is frankly sad), but I think the only way to properly address that is through greater community outreach and mentoring. Anyway, apologies for rambling. I have a tendency to do that lol I do hope that we can work together more in the future, and feel free to drop by my talk page anytime! Aoba47 (talk) 23:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the good review there, Aoba47! You noticed precisely the prose issues that I did, so at least if the FAC doesn't get promoted, Gamer has plenty of material to work on now, and will make it next time. Let's see what Hurricane Noah comes up with. (The only issue with my back is that I can't sit at a real keyboard for a long time, so end up typing too much from my iPad and making lots of dreadful typos, and not fully explaining myself :) On the math FAs, the problem there has been a long-standing attitude problem among some of the core editors, where they don't seem to accept that the problem is often not the math, but the English! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm just glad I can help. Hopefully, with Hurricane Noah's participation, there is a better chance the article will be improve to the point it can be promoted this time, but it will certainly help it for the next nomination if that happens. You are far better at editing on an iPad than I could ever be lol. I have always struggled whenever I tried to edit on my phone so I have a lot of respect for editors that can make it work on mobile devices. Now that you point it out, I am not surprised by the math editors reason. Hopefully, that changes in the future though. Aoba47 (talk) 17:46, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Gonna be honest Sandy. I am unsure what else to do with the FAC because I am not that good with copyediting and if that is whats holding up the nomination I would need someone to do a passthrough. GamerPro64 03:06, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Well its looking like it will be failing its nomination now. But I want to thank you for at least giving it a chance to stay up longer. GamerPro64 16:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@GamerPro64: I'm sorry my prose isn't good enough to help out. What will be your next step? That is, will you put it up at Peer review or will you request help from GOCE? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Honestly I have no clue how to improve the Reception section to the Opposers liking. That seems to be my only hang up. GamerPro64 20:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

All is not lost

Here is a first time nominator who seems to be a potential for "getting it". Ceoil (talk) 00:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Hallelujah! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:MED Newsletter - August 2020

Issue 3—August 2020

WikiProject Medicine Newsletter

Despite continued tumult in the real world, the show–and the newsletter–must go on at WP:MED. As always your comments, concerns, and ideas are welcome at the newsletter talk page (and at WT:MED). Here is what's happening this month:

Newly recognized content

Buruli ulcer nom. Ajpolino, reviewed by Tom (LT) Pantothenic acid nom. David notMD, reviewed by HaEr48

Nominated for review

Parkinson's disease At featured article review. Discussion here Prostate nom. Tom (LT), under review by Dunkleosteus77 Niacin nom. David notMD, under review by Ajpolino Willis J. Potts nom. Larry Hockett Dimple nom. MonkeyStolen234 Atul Gawande nom. Vrrajkum, under review by BennyOnTheLoose Louise Bourgeois Boursier nom. Doug Coldwell Ureter nom. Tom (LT), under review by Dunkeosteus77 Anatomical terms of location nom. Tom (LT) Antibiotic sensitivity testing nom. Tom (LT)

News from around the site

• If you've got the time, please review a GA nomination (criteria/instructions). Nominations currently sit two months before review. Let's aim for a month or less.
• Starting July 3rd, the WMF's "Wikipedia" social media accounts will highlight an "article of the week". If you've got the bandwidth, you can watchlist Social media/Article of the week (on meta) where they'll post the article around a day ahead of time for us to clean up. You can also suggest articles to highlight.
• A new sister project has been approved by the WMF Board: Abstract Wikipedia.

Discussions of interest

• Several medicine-related FAs promoted 5+ years ago could use a review and update. An effort to organize our efforts is at WT:MED.
• A large university class is working on medicine-related articles this month. They're largely focused on articles with maintenance tags. The students are working in small groups and posting their goals at each talk page. Consider watchlisting some of the assigned articles and helping the students (and us regulars) have a positive experience.
• Tom (LT) is spearheading an effort to clean up and organize medicine-related templates, resulting in many active TfD discussions. See a list of active TfDs at WP:MED/Article alerts.

For a list of ongoing discussions in WP:MED-tagged articles, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Discussions
Also, a reminder to see Article Alerts for a list of medicine-related AfDs, CfDs, merge discussions, and more!

Under the Wikimedia Research Spotlight

Number of academic papers focused on Wikipedia's health content each year

This month's Wikimedia Research Showcase was on the topic "Medical knowledge on Wikipedia". It featured two presentations from invited academics (link).

First, Denise Smith (Mcbrarian) at McMaster and Western Universities received a WMF grant to review the academic literature on "Wikipedia as a health resource". She found 89 papers on the topic, most of which aim to assess our health content's accuracy, comprehensiveness, or readability. Findings vary, but are complicated by poor comparators (e.g. Wikipedia vs. a surgery textbook), the fluidity of content (research becomes dated quickly), and attempts to generalize to "health content" with no discussion of how our content is a patchwork of articles in vastly different states. The remaining papers fall into one of three categories: the use of Wikipedia as (1) a general medical resource, (2) a tool for health education, or (3) a tool for research. Interesting papers in each group, but I'll leave further exploration to the reader. There's a general trend of more papers on this topic over time; Smith is hopeful the stigma towards Wikipedia in academia and healthcare could be eroding. With any luck, her review will help orient academics as they consider studying our content. For more, see her paper in PLoS ONE.

Second, Giovanni Colavizza at the University of Amsterdam sought to assess the reliability and comprehensiveness of our covid-19 coverage by studying our citations. He collected the ~3k citations in our covid articles and compared them to the ~160k total papers on covid/coronaviruses. He found we disproportionately cite articles in more reputable journals, as well as articles that are highly cited, mentioned on Twitter, downloaded on Mendeley, etc. We disfavor citing preprints. To investigate the comprehensiveness of our citations across topics, he used the titles and abstracts of all covid papers to cluster them into five broad topical groups. He finds our citations to each group largely match its proportion in the total literature, with some exceptions (we overcite molecular biology and epidemics papers relative to their proportion in the literature, and undercite clinical medicine and public health papers). One might assume this means our coverage of covid-19 is fairly balanced to the broad topics of the literature. For more, see Colavizza's slide deck and biorxiv preprint.

For the time/interest constrained, see summaries from the authors and from WhatamIdoing.

Discuss this issue

You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.

Ajpolino (talk) 20:36, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Circ and HIV

Re Circumcision and HIV

I wanted to let you know that 2009 is not "old" and that the randomized controlled trials that were done in 2005 and 2006 will never be repeated because they are definitive. The recommendations from WHO and CDC have not changed and will not because there is not and will not be new evidence. Petersmillard (talk) 15:11, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I want to let you know that 2009 is old, but thanks for the help. I think that a better way to stifle "criticism" in the History section is to write it correctly and use the latest possible sources, so we do not appear to be stifling criticism for the sake of ... stifling criticism. The two critical articles are newer than the Cochrane Review, and Cochrane reviews have their own issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: what do you think of the situation there? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I think it is a ridiculous situation. I don't mean to pull rank but I'm a medical doctor with a PhD in epidemiology and this is my specific area of expertise. I do think some knowledge is needed to edit this article. These criticisms are typical of "intactivists" who are akin to vaccine deniers and others who should not have an audience on Wikipedia, and they do not follow MEDRS. They are unsubstantiated opinions of wackoos and they don't belong on wikipedia. WHO and CDC are authoritative sources and it should be left at that. Petersmillard (talk) 18:09, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

You don't mean to pull rank ... but you did? Please, get a good source so you can refute it based on Wikipedia policies, rather than "pulling rank" opinion: on Wikipedia, we can't exclude criticism (in a history section, no less-- not current information about treatment, for example) just because we disagree with it. There WILL be good sources for the disagreement if it's valid, and you surely have access to good library resources. WHO and CDC are not the authoritative underlying literature, and what they say is not in direct response to the criticism. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

PS, please continue this discussion at article talk if you intend to, where a broader audience can engage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, I think Peter's likely correct about the overall facts, and I'd think that even if he weren't claiming to be an MD/PhD. The correlation between circumcision and HIV transmission has been known for at least two decades, and the "intactivists" generally grasp at any straw that offers them a reason to reject the possibility that there might be any possible health benefit to circumcision. Don't be surprised if someone claims that it's unethical to study this but "accidentally" forgets to say that the reason it's unethical is because the study would be knowingly increasing the HIV rate in the non-circumcised group. Expect the same behavior around for HPV transmission, which is also reduced by circumcision.

I can't congratulate the current version of the article for arguing, from a mid-tier law journal, about what a US ethics committee would have approved 20 years ago. Given how bad the AIDS situation was in Africa then, and given the wide variety of garbage that US ethics committees have approved, I think those authors are stating their wishes, rather than their facts. And speaking of facts, all of this post-trial speculation about whether the studies were ethical is irrelevant. Either circumcision has an effect on transmission, or it doesn't. There are good reasons to believe that it has a small effect on transmission. Saying that Good People™ would never have approved this study afterwards is a bit like pretending that Nazi scientists didn't discover anything about anatomy and physiology, because their methods were utterly immoral. The facts are still the facts, even if you disagree with the morality of the study being conducted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I can't support any of what's in the article now, but I don't see why we can't make the case based on the published secondary sources, rather than basing it on "who we are and what we know" (because I'm the Queen of Sheba, dontchaknow :) I seriously trimmed the heck out of what was there so we could get down to bare bones and then go out and find a good reason to be rid of the back-and-forth. Because it's history, I have a harder time pulling plain MEDRS to outright delete it, particularly when later sources are discussing an earlier Cochrane review. Surely someone (cough) with good library access can do this based on sources, rather than "pulling rank"! (When there are SO many high pageview articles that need epidemiology repair.) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:04, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I've posted a quotation from Harrison's on the talk page. It is unequivocal about circumcision working for het couples. The article should be re-worked to present that as the main POV. Unfortunately, there are few Wikipedians who don't have a strong personal POV on the subject and are still willing to work on circumcision-related articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Just saw that and responded there ... since I don't have the source, I'd rather not be the one making the edits ... would you like to do the honors? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:04, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

PRNewswire

American Society for Reproductive Medicine

This is a PRNewswire/ article.

Is it primary or secondary? Is it acceptable?

https://amaalliance.org/healthcare-news/?rkey=20200812CL89524&filter=88

I think it is primary (or primary equivalent) and not acceptable.

Thank you, Dan Memdmarti (talk) 04:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I will explain to you tomorrow, from a real keyboard, how that can be used ... ipad typing now ... please pester me if I forget :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:53, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Memdmarti (talk) 05:04, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, finally. As a press release, WP:ABOUTSELF applies ... it's not so much whether it is primary or secondary, as it is information that came from them, that is, not an uninvolved, independent source, so how it can be used is limited. My suggestions are:

1. I have added it to the article to back and update the older secondary source about 100 countries.
2. I imagine that all of the mission, vision stuff would be on the organization's website, so we have no need to cite a (potentially self-serving) press release for that kind of content (which isn't particularly useful or encyclopedic), unless it means we need to change something now in the article? If so, I'd rather cite directly to self (ASRM website) than to a press release about self. Unless something important has changed that you feel should be incorporated before the ASRM has a chance to update their website?
3. Everything in the About ASRM section falls under content that should not be self-cited ... things like "has been the global leader in multidisciplinary reproductive medicine research, ethical practice, and education" need an independent, unbiased source. So, unless you disagree, best I can tell the only thing we need to use from the press release is reinforcement of the dated 100 countries. Sorry to take so long but I wanted to do this in steps and link you to the policy page for your learning curve. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

yeah...

I've been fighting sinus stuff and husband has been underfoot a bit more than usual (just the vagaries of scheduling, he's been able to get home a bit more... he's fine and the job is fine, thankfully). Also have a client wanting a good bit of research, so FAC and wiki have suffered a bit. Sue me. --Ealdgyth (talk) 13:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Have you noticed that allergy problems this year are dreadful? I've had such cold-like symptoms from allergies that I actually feared I had COVID at one point ... went to full masks and hubby sleeping in separate room, no meals together, isolation, the full nine yards, until I realized that allergy medication tamed the symptoms :) You're doing fine at FAC :) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

PS, Ealdgyth I want you to notice that this is working. If only we could get back to that, instead of FAC dragging through Peer review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:02, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Oops, I meant this, the earlier post from Ceoil. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:03, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Elagabalus

Thanks for thinking of me at Wikipedia:Featured article review#Elagabalus, although I'm probably not going to be of much use. I will at least make sure that Llywrch is made aware. Regards as always, Paul August ☎ 15:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

ASRM_Notable_members

There are no citations for the four members listed at American_Society_for_Reproductive_Medicine#Notable_members and the organization feels that this type list leaves out many others including at least one Nobel prize winner and others who want to be listed; ASRM would like it deleted. Will you delete it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Memdmarti (talk • contribs) 19:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Done :) We typically don't have to remove text just because it is uncited, if it can be cited. But if the organization itself requests it, it's likely that text can't be cited, so I see no reason to keep it. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you SandyGeorgia, danMemdmarti (talk) 21:05, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Another new

Heya, I hate to keep asking you for help but I'm just trying to make sure I'm doing everything okay still - if you don't see any issues with User:Berchanhimez/sandbox/Augmented renal clearance lemme know and I'll go ahead and move it and consider that I'm doing okay and stop being so cautious and scared :) Thanks in advance. bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 16:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Berchanhimez ... looking very good.

I would change "Background" to "History" (and don't pay attention to those who insist History is last ... every article is different, WP:MEDMOS order of suggestions are only suggestions, and if history is better first, it can be first. I would suggest though that the content in History can possibly be broken out into the different sections at MEDMOS.

The article is good for mainspace ... I will fix some dashes and things after you move it, and you might contemplate whether reorganizing the text to the suggested MEDMOS sections is a good thing. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:02, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I actually went ahead and just used MEDMOS headings for it - as much as it was awkward to do, it has been growing on me every time I open it up. I'm going to try to keep working on wikilinks from other articles to it, but most of them will require significant content (read as: not trivial, sourced, specific to the article being linked from) to be added to link - which I can do (and did do with one sentence at vancomycin since I had a good source for it from this article), so it'll take some time. Also, I'm forgetful, so I may forget. Thanks for the feedback and help with dashes - is there anyway I can avoid creating this extra work for you and/or others because I don't really know how to create an em/en dash, nor what the heck each is used for in real life much less in Wikipedia? bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:22, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@Berchanhimez: see User:SandyGeorgia/Editing tools, and then have a look at WP:DASH to understand the difference between a hyphen and an WP:EMDASH or WP:ENDASH. Some people literally cannot see the difference, while faulty dashes drive me batty ... errr ... battier. :) In the edit screen, there is a box just below the edit window ... the first thing after INSERT is an endash, and the next is an emdash. Sorry for brevity, my son is in surgery today and I have not been focused. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Oooooh thank you for the link to the tools! I installed a couple of them :) bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I hope your son did well! I have added User:SandyGeorgia/Editing_tools to my lists. Memdmarti (talk) 10:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Memdmarti, they were able to do the repair laparoscopicly (apparently I don't know how to spell that), he is recovering well, and now we wait for ten days before we hear if the surgeons consider the problem resolved so that there will not be repercussions in his professional path. I have been meaning to get over to your talk to ask for some review of some student edits, but just haven't caught up to do so ... best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia,I am glad to hear he did well. I will watch for the students edits. If I understand, you do not need to be pinged for non-urgent messages. Is that correct? Memdmarti (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@Memdmarti: Only on pages that you know I have watched ... where we could REALLY use your help with student editing is false pregnancy, fertility medication and hypoestrogenism. See User talk:SandyGeorgia#Monitoring students at Med articles for the classic student editing issues. We have cleaned up the most basic, but typically, the articles don't hang together well, as students add bits and pieces without consideration of due weight, and not always the most pertinent info, and not always in context or understandable, often with large gaps. I think those three articles now use secondary sources and are adequately organized, with the most serious issues somewhat cleaned up, but any improvements you can make would be dandy! If you could focus on anything that is dramatically wrong before trying to make the articles dramatically right, which is always a challenge while articles are undergoing student edits. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, will look at User talk:SandyGeorgia#Monitoring students at Med articles, false pregnancy, fertility medication and hypoestrogenism.Memdmarti (talk) 03:55, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

ETD peer review - end in sight?

Hi SandyGeorgia, a big thanks for your help with the peer review for the article on Edward Daniell. Just to let you know it looks like Ceoil is now done. Also, I think I've addressed the 'mixture of different dashes' issue and sorted the MOS:LQ errors, let me know if I'm wrong. Not sure about the issue of the order of the sections, how do we resolve this? (Ceoil didn't comment on it and personally I'd keep the sections as they are, but I'm open to suggestions.) Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 21:30, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@Amitchell125: I will look in tomorrow ... it has been a long haul for you, but the payoff will be worth it! Please pester me if I forget ... it happens ;) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:35, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Nobody seems that pushed about the order of the sections, or at least has come up with an alternative solution. It doest seem like a deal breaker, and anyway, if an an issue at FAC II, a viable alt can be sorted with a copy/paste. Personally, I'm fine with the way it stands now. Ceoil (talk) 23:43, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi SandyGeorgia, please consider yourself duly pestered to have another look. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 17:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, and sorry ... honestly i have it on my calendar at home and keep moving it to the next day ... I Have Not Forgotten!! Stuff Keeps Happening ... but I also figure the longer I leave Ceoil in there, the better it gets :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Monitoring students at Med articles

Hello, Sandy! Although I've been around and have plenty of confidence editing and guiding others on non-Med articles, and I have even interacted a lot with WikiEd students on numerous articles, I'm less familiar with editing med articles, and have no experience monitoring students who are doing so, so I don't have a lot of confidence in this area. Can you mentor me a little, or just watch over my shoulder or give advice now and then? For example: just now, I'm looking at recent changes to Hypoestrogenism. My gut feeling (were it not a Med article), is that the whole subsection #Hypogonadism recently added under section #Causes (Diff : >= 90 student edits since 25 July) should either go away entirely, or be reduced to a sentence with links, as the topic is adequately covered at other articles, and it's why we have wikilinks. Or, should it remain, and be considered a "summary" per WP:SS, with {{Main}} links at top of section? Also, do we use "Causes" as a section header, or is there a convention to use "Etiology" instead? Maybe there's a FAQ page somewhere on the Med project I should be looking at? Thanks,Mathglot (talk) 01:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that is something they commonly do ... I'll look in. Yes, we use causes, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Diseases or disorders or syndromes. There are five things that are hallmarks of student editing:

1. You have to check everything for copyvio
2. They add content to the wrong articles, rather than linking
3. They use primary sources inappropriately
4. They put all uppercase in section headings
5. And they have alarming prose redundancies ...

It will keep you busy! I'll look in ... after hundreds of edits to correct the student editing, I managed to turn false pregnancy into a semi-decent article! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot:, you are correct. They are over duplicating content available at the individual articles, rather than just listing conditions which can be causes. It should be winnowed down to one short para. It's OK to give a brief definition, but they don't have to repeat the whole thing. One gets the impression they get graded on word count, so they pad up the articles. Go for it; I'll watchlist, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I've referenced this discussion, in a new "Help section" at WT:MED. Mathglot (talk) 01:19, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Just fyi: I'm at the article history, and looking at your edits; watching, and learning... I can see how second-nature this is to you, and the mass of experience that must be under it. Mathglot (talk) 02:06, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

At least they used mostly secondary reviews, but it is clear that the topic is WAY over their heads, and the writing is a stretch for them. In a case like that, I wait for the course to end, and then go in and fix it because if you try now, you'll be chasing your tail with them. The profs should guide them to topics they can handle; this is a tough topic for Pharm students, and the writing is sophomoric as it is clear they don't really know what they should be writing. Sad ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot:, bedtime, I quit! And I am traveling all day tomorrow. What I did was sort of random, but gave you a starting place ... I suggest some copyvio checks, reminders to them to wikilink, explanations to them on talk of why I deleted text that belongs elsewhere ... and lots of general copyediting, because students are typically very poor writers. Don't assume that anything that I left is OK ... I just wanted to get you started! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

and 6., they remove large chunks of existing content without putting in replacements. Johnbod (talk) 02:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

and 7, they drop their text in to any section, even if the text already exists, even if it's the wrong section-- they don't merge content or consider flow, just seek to get their addition in for a grade.

and 8, they use sources that have nothing to do with the article topic and don't even mention the article topic, because apparently more text and more sources = better grade. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much, both for your edits at the article (I was amazed by your pace) as well as your comments there and here. This was truly an education. This:

because if you try now, you'll be chasing your tail

was yet another great tip, in the area of practicalities of editors monitoring student edits. I won't assume, and thanks! We need to download your brain somewhere, so we can all learn from it.

Have a safe trip! Mathglot (talk) 03:28, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

You're a whirlwind; sorry I wasn't of much help, but I'm learning. How did you manage this CITEVAR cleanup to consistent |vauthor= usage? Do use AWB or some script? That seems like it would be painful to do manually, or are you so used to it, it's second nature? Mathglot (talk) 02:15, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, regarding your five editing tips at Talk, I'm pretty sure all of those are covered in the Wiki Education modules that are part of their student training before they start. On the one hand, you'd think they'd know that, having just learned it; although maybe it's a lot to remember, and I suppose it's normal to just forget a lot of it, like which side of a ref the punct goes I guess. Mathglot (talk) 02:21, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, tired, more tomrrow ... see my user page, Look in user box, look for diberri/Boghog citation filler, Wish students would use it, plug in PMID, voila, citation! Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Here, https://citation-template-filling.toolforge.org/cgi-bin/index.cgi SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:40, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

forgot to tellyou, I find the ones that need fixing by searching on the word last, as they use that for author, Also i have a script somewhere that separates refs only from text, will look for where I have that tomorrow, S

@Mathglot:, I put the tools and scripts I use at User:SandyGeorgia/Editing tools. Hope this helps! That article is giving me a headache, because a ) they are not adequately representing sources, b) someone just deleted text that was not cited but was citeable, c) there is no context for a lot of the text, and ... ugh. You should take over now :) You can click on PMIDs to see if an article is listed as a Review, but sometimes articles are reviews even though PubMed does not identify them as such, so you have to go in and look. One never knows if the students are even reading the talk page, so you might ping them globally to the page to ask if they have seen all my comments, and to add your own. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:31, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, Are the suggestions at User_talk:Memdmarti#false_pregnancy_suggestions OK to use? Memdmarti (talk) 15:39, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Injections

Howdy, just in case you may be interested I made a list of articles for medical injections and their ratings here (it can also be transcluded), and am planning to try and bring them all at least to B class if not good or featured as my next "project". I'm reaching out mostly in case you may be interested, but also to see if there's like a "project holding area" for WP:MED or something similar to see if anyone else wants to help. Thanks :) -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:14, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Berchanhimez that's quite out of my territory, so I can't offer much. As to "holding area", the best you can do is let WT:MED know about your sandbox and hope others will pitch in. And then remember to ask others to re-assess as you improve. I am barely keeping up with my watchlist since the painters and the landscape person (I am getting a new butterfly garden, releasing about 40 Monarchs this year from the few milkweed I have!!) finally showed up, just as the gutter guy and a trip to the cabin are also scheduled! So, I can't take on anything new and am struggling just to respond to the urgent. (Taking this opportunity to let Iridescent know that I'm not ignoring the thread I started on his page ... I just could have picked better timing ... will have more free time next week.) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Possible COI Tamer_Seckin

I want to add a citation to Tamer_Seckin#Selected_bibliography. I know and work as a colleague with Tamer on his research and promote the Endometriosis Foundation of America on my website links page (https://www.danmartinmd.com/links.html). I am reimbursed some expenses and use his data in my presentations but am not otherwise paid. If you have COI with Kistner, I have COI with Tamer. Do you agree?

He is a co-author of a sentinel article on cancer-associated driver mutations in endometriosis at Anglesio MS, Papadopoulos N, Ayhan A, Nazeran TM, Noë M, Horlings HM, Lum A, Jones S, Senz J, Seckin T, Ho J, Wu RC, Lac V, Ogawa H, Tessier-Cloutier B, Alhassan R, Wang A, Wang Y, Cohen JD, Wong F, Hasanovic A, Orr N, Zhang M, Popoli M, McMahon W, Wood LD, Mattox A, Allaire C, Segars J, Williams C, Tomasetti C, Boyd N, Kinzler KW, Gilks CB, Diaz L, Wang TL, Vogelstein B, Yong PJ, Huntsman DG, Shih IM (May 2017). "Cancer-Associated Mutations in Endometriosis without Cancer". N. Engl. J. Med. 376 (19): 1835–1848. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1614814. PMC 5555376. PMID 28489996.

Please consider adding that to Tamer_Seckin#Selected_bibliography or let me know if I can.

Note: If you have not studied cancer-associated driver mutations, they were first discovered in cancers but are now found almost everywhere anyone looks. They are not cancerous and not known to be pre-cancerous.

Memdmarti (talk) 04:23, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I will look in tomorrow ... IPad typing now ... see this, cited by 231 is a good indication it was an important paper. OSandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:41, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, SandyGeorgia! The scholar.google information is great.. Memdmarti (talk) 14:28, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Done, hard to look at messes like that and not clean them up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:34, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, SandyGeorgia! Sorry about pointing you to you a mess.

Is the follwing usefule at Tamer_Seckin#Endometriosis_Foundation_of_America? User:Memdmarti/sandbox#Tamer diff? "The Endometriosis Foundation of America's yearly Blossom Ball has included women who have suffered from endometriosis including Susan Sarandon, Padma Lakshmi,[1] Whoopi Goldberg,[2] and Kirsten DeHaan.[3]"

Did you meant to add Endometriosis Foundation of America at diff?

“well one would think you have to be born before you can immigrate, no?” Yes, no. Or is it "No, yes?" Or is "I agree" clearer? Memdmarti (talk) 15:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Dan, there was a lot wrong there. Basic ESL copyediting needs, dead links, off-topic content, but most significantly, an important WP:BLP violation. Some IP stuck a primary source legal ruling in as the first citation-- the first thing a reader encounters. You should understand that this is not tolerated on Wikipedia and you or someone should have complained earlier. The appeals case had no bearing on him (was related to a Medicaid lien), and the case that was about him was settled out of court, so we have no indication of culpability (those kinds of cases are infamous for huge settlements), and if that primary source were to be used in an article, it would need to be buttressed by some secondary coverage of it. So that's gone. If you have a question about something of that nature in the future, you can ask at WP:BLPN.

On the Foundation, it should have its own article, and stuff like fundraising and name dropping is off-topic trivia wrt Seckin's bio. If someone wants to create the Foundation article, it can go there. If you create it in Sandbox, I'll check it; that way, you avoid COI, and you can use it as a learning tool. There was a lot of stuff in the bio which is not uncommon or unexpected for any physician meeting notability, and having it just made him look ... small. I'd never use a source like superdoctors.com. Also, MOS:HONORIFICS, lose the "Dr.", and we don't use uppercase on titles and positions like Chief of Gynecology. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:41, 23 August 2020 (UTC). PS, see WP:RED. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, SandyGeorgia!

• “legal ruling” Thank you, I will watch for that in the future. That was an odd citation.
• MOS:HONORIFICS Also useful Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Academic_titles_and_degrees
• Endometriosis Foundation of America page. I will work on that. Is there a page like WP:BLP that applies to organizational pages?
  • The template is at User:Memdmarti/sandbox/endofound
  • Email to their communications department will be sent tonight with the link.
  • Memdmarti (talk) 03:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC).

• Updated questions re Endometriosis Foundation of America page, copied and duplicated from User:Memdmarti/sandbox/endofound#Controls_and_Categories Diff
  • SandyGeorgia, does "authority control" need to be enabled, it is currently nowiki disabled, while I am learning how to do a new page?
  • Did the following create problems?
    • "[[Category:Medical associations based in the United States]]," "[[Category:Medical and health organizations based in New York City]]," and "[[Category:Obstetrics and gynaecology organizations]]" were enabled and disabled Diff
    • WP:authority control "{{authority control}}" was enabled and disabled Diff.
  • Can I use "User:Memdmarti/sandbox/endofound" page instead of "User talk:Memdmarti/sandbox/endofound" page for questions to you when I am in Sandbox? Does "WP:BLANKING you can do what you want. (;  Darth Flappy «Talk» 19:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC)" apply? If not, can I move this page to "User talk:Memdmarti/sandbox/endofound?"Memdmarti (talk) 12:10, 25 August 2020 (UTC) / Memdmarti (talk) 12:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Answers to User:Memdmarti:

1. WP:BLP is a unique thing on Wikipedia-- the only other area that has similar strictness is WP:COPYRIGHT. What you need to know when writing other articles is at WP:NN and (for this case) WP:ORG.
2. Just to get you used to the terminology, that's not a "template" on Wikipedia; it's a user sandbox :) Template:Tourette syndrome is a template.
3. Typically, you wouldn't need to contact the org itself, because theoretically you are writing based on what is published in third-party, independent reliable sources. You can make limited, appropriate (non-puffery) use of their website. I have never contacted anyone or anything on any article I've written, and there's generally no need or reason to contact them. Remember, WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a webhost.
4. I don't deal with authority control or Wikidata, know nothing about them, and am quite content to leave it that way. If something needs to be added, someone who cares will do that.
5. You can comment out cats for now, as I explained at the talk page of your sandbox. Nowiki isn't what you want here ... Nowiki causes something to show in text rather than be wikified, but it doesn't disable it on the page, and neither authority control nor cats should be used in userspace, which is why they should be commented out for now instead.
6. Using User:Memd ... rather than User talk:Memd ... is essential. Only YOU edit your userspace, while others can edit your user talk. This matters for things like attribution and later deleting the page. If you are the sole editor, you can request the sandbox later be deleted. And when you are the sole editor, you can edit-copy, edit-paste the article to main space without concern for attribution, because it's all your work.

Let's continue with any other questions at your sandbox talk. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, SandyGeorgia! I will move to sandbox talk later today. Memdmarti (talk) 13:57, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done Moved Memdmarti (talk) 15:35, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Memdmarti (talk) 02:18, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

High-dose_estrogen#Medical_uses

Please check my changes at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=High-dose_estrogen&type=revision&diff=974060385&oldid=971932918

The changes at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=High-dose_estrogen&diff=next&oldid=971932694 changed the historical and biologic context of Kistner's Text. I reverted to wording similar to the previous wording that is also in the citation to Kistner's textbook.

The citation has the correct quote. That edition was edited by Berkowitz RS, Barbieri RL. Kistner RW, Ryan KJ according to https://www.amazon.com/Kistners-Gynecology-Ross-Stuart-Berkowitz/dp/0815174799/. I corrected the citation editors to those. Kistner is either an honorary posthumous editor, or Amazon.com pulled his name from the title or equivalent, or something else. I do not have a hard copy to check.

Thank you, Dan Memdmarti (talk) 22:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

heading out to dinner, will look tomorrow, Barbieri was my Dr. after Kistner died, small world, all the best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Dan.

I harvested and then archived some of your notes tonight. Did that ping you? If so, should I archive the text rather than the wiki markup (if that is the way to distinguish the display rather than the editing language)? Memdmarti (talk) 05:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Your talk page arrangement has bee pinging me quite regularly ;). I have been meaning to help you understand how to better set your pages up, and copy advice, but would much rather focus on helping you learn to edit. Not a problem ... I can ignore the pings ... we will get to that as time permits. For now, the only thing that matter is ... have you meant to ping me to your talk page to ask me something I have ignored ?? Still waking up ... will get to high dose estrogen today, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, SandyGeorgia. No, I did not intend to ping you, I was archiving. I know not to ping you. Your talk page is on my watch list. Dan Memdmarti (talk) 15:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Dan, I had a look in there, and one problem is that you are dealing with an article that is a mess to begin with; this is not atypical for Wikipedia :) I don't want to overwhelm you with Too Much Information at once (which I may have already done), but I put a starting list on the article's talk page. Again, don't worry yet about how to most effectively use your talk page, and about the pings to me; we can sort that when we both have a break.

A suggestion for the long-run for you to prevent burnout. You are most effective in your area of expertise, but if you try to clean up everything, it may feel overwhelming. Some people like putzing about fixing things here and there; once you have dabbled in these low pageviews, low importance articles, and learned more about Wikipedia editing, you will be in better position to decide if that is enjoyable, or if you'd rather move to articles that have more impact. Should you decide that:

1. Go to WP:MED
2. Go to the section, Metrics.
3. Click on the 1000 most popular articles, which will take you to this page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Popular pages. It's updated monthly.

If you scroll down that page, you find where you can give the most bang for your buck. As an example, polycystic ovary syndrome is the 127th most viewed article in medical content, with about 4,000 daily average views. How does that compare to high-dose estrogen?

1. At the HDE article, click on the History tab at the top
2. Click on Pageviews

You can change the timeframe there, but you can see that for the default setting of 20 days, the daily average pageviews are 21. You may find it enjoyable to work on the building blocks, the lower-level articles that get few views, and those articles are the best place to learn to edit. But you might add more value to the encyclopedia if you eventually move up, as you are able without engaging COI, to the higher pageview articles that you can find in the 1000 most popular article list.

Back on the learning to manage your talk page, should you copy this message to your talk, just leave off my signature, and it won't ping me. Instead, at the top, add the words: Copied from diff, and that attributes me, tells you where you got it should you need to go back, and doesn't ping me. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, SandyGeorgia.

Also re: AnomieBOT "(Rescuing orphaned refs ("ThomasRock2012" from rev 974223412))" I know to watch for that now. Memdmarti (talk) 13:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Please clarify [ diff,]. Does that mean I need to add the URL at the top of the page before "diff" inside the [] like diff? Dan Memdmarti (talk) 03:02, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Yep, that’s a diff. Sheesh, I am so sorry, Dan ... one forgets how much lingo we use in here ! Keep plugging, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:29, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, SandyGeorgia! Memdmarti (talk) 03:44, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

To do

In the following order ... prioritize ... my back can only sit so long at a computer

1. User:Eyoungstrom Finish VMI
2. User:WhatamIdoing Lead RFC
3. And finally, my own editing ... do

   Morgagni hernia

   habit cough

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Heh. Welcome to my life... and this doesn't include off-wiki stuff, of course. --Ealdgyth (talk) 13:37, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Until that damn tree fell on me, I coulda done this in a day. Now I can only sit at a computer so much at a time, and trying to keep up on ipad or laptop is awful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

You know all that ergonomics stuff about sitting with everything at 90° angles? It turns out that it's for 'typical' people, not for all of us. I mostly work while lying down, and I have had many (many many) fewer problems with my lower back and neck since I gave up on trying to use a desk. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:25, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I am best on sofa. So here I am, having moved my laptop to the coffee table at the cabin, with my mouse on the sofa next to me, because my arthritic fingers don't get along with the track pad! But the canoe beckons ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

We've been away all weekend with another couple and their kids - we were all playing card games for many hours a day so little time for focussed editing. But on the brightside I have done almost all the tax I need to do (done two years' worth in a few months)...... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

We are cleaning up, packing up, and making the long drive home today, so more ipad typos from me in the car. Cas, taxes done ... now we can hope to see More of your editing again! Hooray! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Squirm...

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Squirm/archive1 - is your review an oppose or just a neutral? --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad you asked, Ealdgyth. I have not only been delayed in returning there by the very disturbing and apparently intentional lifting of Dementia with Lewy bodies without attribution, to further a predatory journal, and my dead laptop (misery loves company ?), but also because I am so disappointed in the FA community. The new crop of editors won't review FARs (GamerPro64 does), and worse, there seems to be a disturbing elitist trend, towards what type of article is considered worthy for FA status. So, those editors who work in those areas deemed "worthy" by those editors get their articles reviewed and passed, even if the prose is less competent than Gamer's horror worms. And it's not fair that Gamer should get an oppose from me when articles with deficient prose and sourcing are given a pass by reviewers all the time. So, it's definitely not an oppose, and I am trying to figure out why I would want to stay involved at FAC with this elitist trend away from that which FAC was built upon ... any kind of article can be an FA, and we used to all work together at both FAC and FAR, with people happy to dig in no matter the topic. These elitist little groups that will only review certain kinds of article-- or articles for the reward culture at Wikicup-- discourage me. If I were the type, I would go support the Squirm just because it bothers me that less worthy articles get through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping and the kind words, Sandy. I don't try to think about elitism on Wikipedia, though there is a reason I never made another attempt at Administrator. But I really do hope that the articles I write for Featured Article can have their day in court, even if it can be unsavory like Squirm. Which does raise the question on how well The Incredible Melting Man will be handled for review soon. GamerPro64 20:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@GamerPro64, Ealdgyth, and Mike Christie: Gamer, if you will nominate Squirm at Peer review, I promise to badger people to review it there. Like Mike, I still have more to add, and I hope to be able to bring in more people. We need to work together to re-invigorate Peer review, to help solve the "FAC has become PR issue", while helping you bring back a fully prepared article to FAC. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:57, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I really hated to archive it but... I can't say to the reviewers "oppose and we'll support you" and then... not support them. --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:59, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm more than welcome to take Squirm to PR but I never intended to make it's FAC a Peer Review. I just wanted it nominated to see if I can write up a Featured article without the need of one. GamerPro64 16:23, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I know ... I did not intend to imply that, rather to get reviewers to say earlier on when an article might better benefit from PR ... so we have to put our money where our mouths are and start fueling PR ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Squirm/archive1 - Peer Review up. GamerPro64 02:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Awesome ... I will get there when I am not exhausted as all heck. If I forget please pester me here ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:47, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Pester, pester. GamerPro64 01:51, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

just for the record

Hi Sandy. Just for the record here, that sentence was actually Colin's, not mine (I suggested another alternative). I think I've already said more than enough there (in the context of a discussion of how to present diffiult terms in way that is as reader-friendly as possible), mainly because I feel the broader question is actually pertinent. Best, 86.190.132.140 (talk) 15:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks ... Colin wont care and I am ipad typing with all the usual typos, so will leave it alone for now ... best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

No problem Sandy. Cheers, 86.190.132.140 (talk) 16:04, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Fixed it anyway, Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:09, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Sandy, just to say that my recent tic-related edits were driven by my own attempts to understand (both the phenomenon and the style choice), not by any uncontainable urge to stress you out. Best, 81.158.69.109 (talk) 10:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

That was an ominous message to wake up to!! I lost interest in maintaining the sub-articles so long ago, and appreciate the edit. The parenthetical was a little bit off in that they experience a feeling that is then “relieved” by the tic, the tic is a response ... the feeling is not that they are about to tic. And to our discussions about sixth grade reading level, avoid “i.e.”. Thanks again, Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Sandy! Yes, I really didn't want to stress... so I'll place the next bit in brackets to allow you to read past and ignore it if you prefer... (... ... hum, on yet further reconsideration, my own feeling is that a good outcome for the valuable content on that half-hidden subpage might be to merge it discreetly with the main event). I don't know your feelings on this, but I'm willing to help out if you wish. Thanks anyway - I've found the content really interesting :-) 81.158.69.109 (talk) 15:37, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I'll get back to you ... per your links above, I just realized I had unwatched that page, and I am not yet fully caffeinated :) And have to get through my watchlist. PS, since I can't ping you, I will respond over there on article talk? Or how do you process things as your IP changes? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

No problem, Sandy. I'll check in there sometime to see you thoughts, no hassle :-)
(btw, my allergy experiences this year have also been unusually pronounced.)
81.158.69.109 (talk) 16:07, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

cool ... I responded on article talk ... yep, the watery eyes this year are the real deal! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:10, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Sandy (and I'd also thought that PainProf could be a good call :-). Thanks also for your kind introduction. Fwiw, contributing as an ip (daily changes are to avoid waste :) seems to offer several advantages both for my silly brain and its rapport with the social-media culture which I somehow find ridiculously challenging. Stay cool, 81.158.69.109 (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Oof, sorry about that, Sandy :-) 86.144.125.192 (talk) 08:25, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

'Tis not a bad thing :) I was blissfully unaware the term was used in other contexts, had not visited that page in over a decade, so we'll get it fixed! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:10, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Good to hear. It more than deserved a link from Tic, lol. Best, 86.144.125.192 (talk) 15:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

If you have a moment

Hi Sandy, doubtless you have your plate full of wiki food. As usual, you were a big help at Joseph A. Lopez's FAC. If you're at all interested and have a spare moment, I'd welcome your thoughts at Bernard A. Maguire's FAC, which has sadly gotten little attention. Ergo Sum 00:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Ergo Sum darn it all to heck, so hard to get reviews these days. I am done for the day, but will look in tomorrow. Might you have a look at Spicy’s complete blood count FAC? It has ample medical review, but needs some laypeople to review it for comprehensibility and jargon. Hasta Mañana, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:56, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Of course. Happy to lend my non-medical advice. Ergo Sum 02:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Ergo Sum I was hoping someone else would go through, before I continue, but that hasn't happened. I do see Coffeeandcrumbs has given more suggestions. I am finding the prose somewhat labored in a few places. I don't want to add those comments to the FAC, as some of my observations could be personal preference, and I don't want to change your tone, but generally, there are sometimes more words than necessary used to explain things. Just poking down in the middle of the article for some samples

• During his tertianship from 1851 to 1852, which was supervised by Felix Cicaterri,[4] Maguire was elected president of Georgetown University by the board of directors in December 1852 to succeed Charles H. Stonestreet.[2]

Many thoughts in one sentence. Why is it significant that the board elected him-- doesn't the board always elect the president? Split into two sentences? Would not something like this work?

• Maguire was elected president of Georgetown University in December 1852 and assumed the position on January 25, 1853. The board of directors elected him to succeed Charles H. Stonestreet, and his appointment was made official by the provincial superior and confirmation by the Jesuit Superior General.

First the significant, then the detail, easier on the reader than so much info in one sentence. Move the tertianship sentence to his education?

• As president, Maguire was liked by the students, but had a reputation for being stern. This was evidenced by the fact that another student uprising broke out during his tenure.

I am not seeing how the second sentence follows from the first?

• This was evidenced by the fact that another student uprising broke out during his tenure. The students were displeased with the prefect's imposition of discipline and Maguire's declining to overrule the prefect. Students began throwing stones and inkwells, breaking windows. The rebellion was quickly quashed after a lecture by Maguire to the students at breakfast the following morning. Six students were expelled as a result.

How about:

• During Maguire's tenure, students were displeased with discipline imposed by the prefect, which Maguire declined to overrule. A student uprising took place, with students throwing stones and inkwells, breaking windows. Maguire lectured the students at breakfast the following morning, and six students were expelled, ending the rebellion.

But I still don't see how that shows his popularity? If you think commentary like this is helpful, I will continue, but I don't want to fill the FAC page with prose tweaks ... I just find about 30% more words than necessary often used to explain things ... Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

It's not uncommon that on-wiki, I get comments like that about my prose. I'll go through and try to tighten it up as best I can. I do find such comments useful, as I know my writing often comes across as unnecessarily dense. Ergo Sum 21:18, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Discrete_trial_training#Effectiveness

Hi SandyGeorgia, your input would great. Thanks. ATC ^{. Talk} 03:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Anatomy FAC blurb

@Tom (LT): I am trying to catch up after several days off (sidelined by a series of minor IRL issues), and cannot find the link to the page where you requested a write a newsletter blurb. Could you please add it here? I lose track of pings, and am more likely to remember things on my talk page. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Here: User talk:Tom (LT)/sandbox/Anatomy newsletter 7. Thanks! --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

TPS: Update to responses needed

I had a few days off after a series of planned and unplanned IRL events, and am working now to catch up. If I owe you a response, you should be on my ToDo list above. If you're not on my ToDo List above, that means I missed a ping, and would appreciate a message here.. I really prefer talk page messages to pings, as I find it hard to consolidate responses needed to pings with responses needed on my watchlist with responses needed on my talk. I Will Get There! SandyGeorgia (Talk)

I don't even know anymore

SandyGeorgia, I've seen you around a lot and have appreciated your reasonable and thoughtful approach that I've seen before. I'm wondering if you can chime in at the current conversation at WikiProject composers where a situation is unfolding that I really don't even know how to explain. The OP seems to be ignoring that Wikipedia is a tertiary source that reflect the coverage of secondary sources, whether they are systematically biased or not – I'm slowly loosing my patience... I'm tempted to bring the article in question to AFD but it may be better to wait till the conversation (hopefully) resolves itself. Aza24 (talk) 03:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Aza24, do you see that "To do list" above? After a few days off, I am so far behind that I despair :( I can promise to try, but can't promise to find time. Tomorrow I have a six-hour drive home from the cabin, and the next day I have multiple medical app'ts, so trying to get all I can done tonight on the list above. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Lol I completely missed that list. No worries then, the conversation is actually talking a calmer turn. If you get a chance in the next few days to stop by (given that it's somehow continuing) feel free to – but if not, that's fine! Aza24 (talk) 04:13, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I can promise to try :) I wanted to catch up today, and one of the first content issues I waded into turned out to be at ANI and SPI, and ... the usual crap ... taking hours of my time on POV pushing acrimonious bullroar when I had hoped to catch up today. This is why people quit. :( Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

FAR advice

Hello again, and apologies for this super random message. I am sorry to hear about the Dementia with Lewy bodies copyright violation. It is always a shame to hear about something like this, especially since you put a lot of work into Wikipedia.

I have decided to help with the FAR for Final Fantasy X-2. I have never participated in a FAR before so I am a little nervous about it. I think I can help (at least somewhat) since I am very familiar with the game. And as an active FAC contributor, I should be more active in the FAR space. I was wondering if you had any FAR-related advice as I would not want to be a pest or cause any trouble? I am probably just over-thinking it lol. Thank you in advance, and I hope you are doing well today! Aoba47 (talk) 20:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Aoba47 this is wonderful news! I will give you a list of advice after I catch up ... I had a few days off because of a series of minor but irritating IRL issues, and am struggling to catch up ... but this is on my talk page and on my To DO List. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Aoba47 I'm back. FAR is even more short-handed than FAC, so if you can help out there, it would be grand. I consider it a worthy venture, because FAs are only as good as the weakest links; if we don't value and keep updated the entire pool of FAs, the category means nothing!

The main thing to do is to understand the FAR instructions, and their purpose. I summarized the gist of it at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Elagabalus/archive2, where you can also see the kind of work needed. People don't do the notifications, haven't posted a notice in advance on talk, or weigh in immediately with Keep or Delist, not understanding that FAR is a deliberative process, with one goal of casting a wide net to find interested editors to save stars when possible. All of those items need constant checking and reminding, as well as helping maintain Wikipedia:Featured article review/notices given (making sure things are added correctly, and removed if the article is sent to FAR, etc). Another helpful thing is to try to ping in people who might help. Other than that, time is always given if progress is ongoing, but frequent pings and checking in are needed, to see if things are on track. After a FAR has been up for about 10 days, one has to check if any progress has been made, and if not, say so on the FAR page, and suggest Move to FARC; alternately, suggest that progress is occurring and it's OK to hold. Once articles move to FARC, then Keep and Delist declarations are needed. My standards at FAR aren't as strict as at FAC, for the simple reason that articles that appear at FAR have usually already run WP:TFA, so I am more willing to let a few things slide if the article is close enough. There are a number of FARCs stalled at the bottom of the page, where the Coords simply need more feedback re Keep or Delist.

I'm particularly happy that you are willing to help out at the Final Fantasy FAR, because User:Deckiller was a co-nom there, and he did a lot of helping other editors in his day, and was quite active in helping out at FAR. Happy to see something he worked on potentially saved! Other than that, read through the entire FAR page to get an idea ... and ask me if you have any other questions. I have a long history at FAR, and a soft spot for it, back from the days when so many FA people worked together, and we saved the bronze star on half of the articles that came through. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• Apologies for the delay in my response. Thank you for the explanation and links. I agree that the FAR is very important, and it is very encouraging whenever editors band together to help an article keep its featured status. I also agree that it is important to upkeep FAs as readers will likely judge the entire FA/FAC process on a single FA that they run across, and that could be quite bad if it is one of those weak links.

• It will be particularly nostalgic to work on this article, as I cannot believe it has been 17 years since this game's release. This game and the Final Fantasy series was a huge part of my childhood, but I will make sure to keep as much of an unbiased view as I can. I will likely start looking through the article and doing revisions either Thursday or Friday so apologies for the delay there. I am not entirely sure how much help I can or will be, but I will certainly try my best.

• ProtoDrake has already done a lot of great work. I will consult the video game FAs as I have actually never nominated a video game article through the FAC space. Maybe, one of these days I will get on that as it is nice to work in different spaces. Aoba47 (talk) 22:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Happy to have you on board there, Aoba47; sorry for the brevity, as I'm still struggling to catch up. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:59, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

No worries. Good luck with your work. I will get the article on Friday instead of Thursday. I had a bad day today so I want to give myself tomorrow to handle it so I can go into the article with the best perspective to actually contribute anything worthwhile. Aoba47 (talk) 00:08, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Teahouse ping list

Hi, I Usedtobecool (I am not sure whether we've officially met before). I was wondering if you would be interested in being pinged on occasion to the Teahouse to help out? (I just realised after coming here that you hate pings.) I am compiling a list at User:Usedtobecool/Tea for when regular hosts at the Teahouse wish they could ping editors with area-specific-expertise to provide a better answer, or when all hosts would rather just ignore the question altogether because they do not know how to answer. The object is to first make sure no question gets archived unanswered and optionally to also make sure on-topic queries receive accurate answers instead of "I think"s and referrals to other talk pages. I have you in mind for "Featured articles" and "WikiProject Medicine" if you would be interested in being listed. If you would be, please check out the list and see if you would like to be listed for other topics also; if not, I will remove you from the list before it gets to the project space. I am also looking for recommendations about who else to reach out to (as my tenure means I would have memorably come across a select few editors only). Thank you, and best Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:35, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Usedtobecool. I can't remember if you pinged me once before for Teahouse help, but I know I've encountered your fine work before. My thoughts. First, I have a DREADFUL time keeping up with pings, which is only part of why I hate them. If I mark them all read, I lose track of what I still have to do, but if I don't mark them all read, I can't tell what I still have to do. So here I am, after several days off due to a series of small but irritating IRL issue, and I am having to go through my pings, through my talk page, and through my watch list to consolidate a list of what I must do so I can prioritize how to get through a backlog. So, generally, I much prefer a request on my talk page to a ping, because I don't lose track that way of something or someone I have to get back to. I also suggest that in terms of Teahouse questions for FAC or medicine, you are much better off making a post to WT:FAC or WT:MED, where you will get more responses. When I see a request there, I jump in if I am able. Perhaps, in fact, make this same request on those pages now, to see if anyone wants to sign up? I think the one area where you could "ping" me (with a request to my talk) is for Spanish-language help, because it is so hard to find people to help with Spanish-language issues, and no real centralized place to make that request. The other editor who is helpful and knowledgeable for Spanish-language help is Seraphimblade. Keep up the good work! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:57, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I will have to think about whether or not to add various languages to the list (if I did, Spanish and Hindi would probably be at the top) but it's good to know you and Seraphimblade would be able to help with that, as there are indeed occasions where language expertise is missed. Although, that I think about it, most of those occasions are usually to do with AFC drafts, and the AFC project has its own list here, if you'd like to check it out (everyone listed, save one, seems to be below es-4). Thank you for your kind response, and stay safe. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 19:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, are you using the Special:Notifications page, or the little bell-and-inbox-tray icons at the top of the page? I find that if there's more than one or two (work-me has, um, 83 at the moment...) that the little drop-down menus at the top of the page just don't cut it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing thanks for the help as always. I was not aware of Special:Notifications; are you suggesting that I can bookmark that page, it will allow me to mark read/unread those I haven't addressed, and I can somehow get rid of those miserable (two, duplicate, with repeat info) drop-down menus at the top of the page? I dunno ... I took the wrong four years off, and somehow completely failed to keep up with new developments. I used to have a simple way of managing my To Do, and it has become a nightmare with these blooming pingie-thingies. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

You don't need to bookmark it, because the two drop-down menus contain the link. At the very bottom of the menu, it says "All notifications". Click that, and it'll take you to Special:Notifications. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I see! Thank you, WhatamIdoing. You know what would be groovey? If one could completely opt out of being pinged in a way that the person who tried to ping you would know you rejected the ping, and have to come to your talk page to REALLY talk. Then I could resume using my talk page as I used to ... archiving sections once they were done. And we could have the kind of "face-to-face" (finger-to-finger typing) communication we used to :) Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that what you want exists. There's a script somewhere (I use it on Meta-Wiki) that tells you if a ping failed, but it might only check for attempts to ping a non-existent account. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:59, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

PUBMED publication type

For a stop-gap way to find how PUBMED classifies an article, and if you're feeling geeky, you can use their API to retrieve an XML record summary by using a URL like so:

https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/esummary.fcgi?db=pubmed&id=9546297

Replace the digits at the end with whatever PMID you're interested in. Somewhere in the record you get back there should be a:

<Item Name="PubType" Type="String">Review</Item>

or somesuch. Alexbrn (talk) 14:22, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Geeky but helpful! Thanks, Alex ... bookmarking this in my userpage userbox, Best SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:25, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia or Alexbrn, does a PunMed classification as an "article" mean that the review of the literature in "Introduction" and "Discussion" of the article is not secondary? Memdmarti (talk) 17:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could give an example, but for an otherwise primary source, the secondary portions (background discussion, etc.) are generally of limited use since they typically tend to present a partial framing of the subject domain which favours the research findings. Alexbrn (talk) 17:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

What he said ... but it always depends on context (what you want to source, and what kind of source you are using, so an example with the text it cites would be good). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you User talk:Alexbrn and SandyGeorgia!

No specific example as most articles, even meta-analyses and Cochran have bias/spin.

Examples: 56% of abstracts had spin in "Evaluation of spin in abstracts of papers in psychiatry and psychology journals" and 55% of peer-reviewed papers in "Peer reviewers identified spin...".

User talk:Alexbrn, your XML_record_summary notes are at User:Memdmarti/editing_tools#PubMed_XML_record_summary. Thank you. Memdmarti (talk) 18:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

And that is why editor discussion and consensus apply even to MEDRS sources. (Besides I personally find Cochrane to not often be very useful.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, SandyGeorgia! Cochrane is very statistically correct, but that is not always useful. A current example is that 99.94% of the US population has survived COVID. That is Google accurate, but I will still wear a mask, wash my hands, and maintain distance as I do not wish to join the 180,000+ who died or the much larger number who were hospitalized and have an unknown future. Memdmarti (talk) 19:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Memdmarti: Just in case you didn't know, those studies you cited are an example of metascience. I may use them to improve that page. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 23:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Wikiman2718! I have watchlisted that. The page looks interesting.Memdmarti (talk) 01:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

No problem. Those papers are a really nice find. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 01:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Medicine Newsletter – September 2020

Issue 4—September 2020

WikiProject Medicine Newsletter

Greetings! A relatively quiet month yields a shorter newsletter. The featured section is taking the month off, but please continue to drop comments and ideas at the newsletter talk page. Here is what's happening this month:

Newly recognized content

Willis J. Potts nom. Larry Hockett, reviewed by Ajpolino Niacin nom. David notMD, reviewed by Ajpolino Prostate nom. Tom (LT), reviewed by Dunkleosteus77 Ureter nom. Tom (LT), reviewed by Dunkeosteus77

Nominated for review

Complete blood count nom. Spicy Parkinson's disease at featured article review. Discussion here Anatomical terms of location nom. Tom (LT) Antibiotic sensitivity testing nom. Tom (LT), under review by Larry Hockett Endell Street Military Hospital nom. G. Moore and Dormskirk Marie Wittman nom. Pi.1415926535, under review by The Most Comfortable Chair Horace Smithy nom. Larry Hockett Charles Bingham Penrose nom. Larry Hockett Louise Bourgeois Boursier nom. Doug Coldwell Injector pen nom. Berchanhimez

News from around the site

• A few restrictions on signatures are being gently phased in to make signatures consistently machine-identifiable. This will enable the development of new talk page tools (and fix some holes in our current tools). Affected editors (~ 900 at English Wikipedia) will be contacted. You can see if you're on the naughty list here.

Discussions of interest

• There are numerous ongoing discussions regarding notability/deletion. Open disucssions focus on draftification, restricting comments on AfDs, and the occasional conflict between SNGs and the GNG.
• An ongoing enormous discussion considers deprecating in-line parenthetical citations.
• At WikiProject COVID-19 editors are catching their breath and taking stock of our Covid-19 coverage thus far.

For a list of ongoing discussions in WP:MED-tagged articles, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Discussions
Also, a reminder to see Article Alerts for a list of medicine-related AfDs, CfDs, merge discussions, and more!

Discuss this issue

You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.

Ajpolino (talk) 02:31, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you!

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		Thank you for your contributions to the current discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers. You made excellent points very eloquently, and in a discussion that definitely needed some finality. Noahfgodard (talk) 00:17, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Good luck there—looks like a tough one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:46, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Robin’s Wish

Lewy body dementia is out of my range.

Robin Williams’s Battle With Dementia Takes Center Stage in Robin’s Wish

Yohana Desta is at https://www.vanityfair.com/contributor/yohana-desta

Web cite: Desta, Yohana (1 September 2020). "Robin Williams's Battle With Dementia Takes Center Stage in Robin's Wish". vanityfair.com. Retrieved 3 September 2020.

Memdmarti (talk) 16:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

References

It's already at Robin's Wish, and everywhere it needs to be; thanks, Dan! I'm a bit disconcerted that they are using the terms all wrong, but nothing I can do about that. DLB and LDB are not well distinguished by Williams' widow or the documentary. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, SandyGeorgia! Dan Memdmarti (talk) 18:42, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thank you, SandyGeorgia for your extraordinary attention and time in helping launch the Endometriosis Foundation of America page!!! Memdmarti (talk) 23:17, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

It has been a pleasure, Dan; thanks so much! I put you through the ropes, and you hopefully learned much more than needed for a first-time article, and now you're ready to rock and roll in here! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Memdmarti (talk) 23:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Some things

Before I get to the point, I would like to apologize for coming across as a bit terse on the talk page of discrete trial training. I really do appreciate your weighing in, and we have made more progress towards consensus in the one day of discussion with you than in the entire week before. However, I do have two concerns: Firstly, you pinged an editor that I had previously accused of harassment and asked him to participate in the debate. I think that you were aware that I had made this accusation, but please do correct me if that is not true. It could easily have been an accident. I really wish you hadn't done that, as this particular editor's choice form of harassment is to conduct content disputes that are not really content disputes, but attempts to drive another editor off the platform. His opinion may be well-respected in some areas of this encyclopedia, but his involvement in the dispute is going to make reaching consensus much more difficult.

Secondly, I would like to talk about the editor who invited you to join the debate. You appear to have some sort of mentoring relationship with him, and it is clear that he respects you. However, his lack of understanding of WP:MEDRS guidelines are a major issue in taking this debate forward. Perhaps you could give him some coaching? I have tried that many times, and he just doesn't listen to me. If you would correct him about claims of the sort that he is making here, where he tries to use MEDRS to justify the removal the mass removal of content that has nothing to do with health claims, that would be big progess on reducing his tendatiousness. Again, I would like to reiterate how much I appreciate your attempts to bring us to consensus. I hope that you continue to participate in discussion, and that we can reach consensus. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 21:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

There's that busted AGF-ometer again. "I think that you were aware ... " and no, I was not. I am NOW aware, and a bit troubled about the history that you reveal, along with your accusations about other editors, but no, you are wrong that I pinged Alexbrn because I was aware of your history. I saw that he had engaged on your talk page when I went to welcome you, thinking you were new, and I knew that he could help me sort out whether the article was a review. Just that simple.

The best thing you can do at this point is to NOT personalize disputes or discussions, as you recognize we are on a good path towards consensus. Whatever past you had with Alexbrn is best forgotten and left behind. You are doing similar with respect to ATC-- focusing on the person rather than the content. Yes, I was a mentor to ATC a decade ago on tic-related articles when they were new and learning, and I have found them to be eager to learn, reasonable in discussion, willing to listen, and always aiming towards policy compliance. In short, I have found ATC to be a non-disruptive, good-faith editor. I have always coached them, when needed, and I find in THIS issue and in this discussion that they are being tempered and reasonable and willing to listen and engage in considered discussion as always. That's the way to go, and the way you should proceed. The advice that SarahSV gave you on the ANI is sound,[1] and I hope you'll consider it.

I won't be able to catch up over there on talk until later tomorrow, as I am in the car, six-hour drive home from cabin, typing on iPhone hotspot. I hope by the time I get over there to start proposing text and sources that I will find things are calm and collaborative. If I can, then, I will also look at Lovaas, but I am disinclined to weigh in to yet another contentious topic unless you, too, work to focus on content rather than editors. Leave behind personalities and strong opinions about what you want articles to state and focus instead on what usable sources have to say. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Hey! I had reason to suspect that you might be aware of the harassment allegation, as it was discussed in an ANI thread that you contributed to. I now see that I was wrong. However, I strongly suggest that you do take a look as Talk:Ole Ivar Lovaas, because when you see how ATC acted there, it will be very difficult for you to reconcile his editing with the claims that he is "willing to listen and engage". This message was intended to be an olive branch. I fully understand that you are acting in good faith, and I really do appreciate your contributions to the talk page. As for my AFG meter, I've gone a little bit past assuming bad faith where ATC is involved. As you can see here, I was recently attacked by a seven year old sleeper sock, and I have accused ATC of being the master. If I am wrong I will owe him a big apology (to say the least), but I don't think I'm wrong. You are, of course, free to weigh in. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 22:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Here's what I see at Lovaas:

• You start a quite inflammatory section, using neurodiversity.com as your source:[2]
• I guess this may be you (?), but there are no diffs, so am not going to try to track down the old concern, but the poster is focusing on editor, not content. IF the OP HAD focused on content, there would be diffs and usable sources, rather than hyperbole aimed at Alexbrn. [3]
• Another personalized section heading:[4] I find you being very intimidating, threatening and accusatory with "last warnings", and ATC keeping their cool and trying to dialogue anyway. Your threats towards ATC hinge on *your* interpretations of select sources, while others have done the work to find a broader representation of sources. So, you may find that taking a different tone in dialogue will produce more lasting results. I do not have a subscription to newspapers.com, so cannot comment on how well you are representing sources. I hope you understand that you got off on the wrong foot by personalizing disputes, and I hope that will end. We don't ask editors to never make mistakes; we ask them to AGF and not turn Wikipedia into a battleground. In the discussion in which I *am* engaged, if I see problems with ATC then I will discuss them there, but I have no interest in wading in to another article to review the entire history where a disagreement has become entirely personalized. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but if that's your analysis, it's clear that you can't be neutral on issue's of ATC's behavior. It looks like I'm just going to have to wait for that socking investigation to go through. Regardless, I am glad to see that you have still managed to remain neutral content-wise. You don't have to worry about the dispute on discrete trial training going on with out you-- I have little hope you making progress with those other two editors while you are not involved, so I'm not even going to try until you come back. Stay safe, and please remember not to Wikipedia and drive. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 22:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Note: for source 4, neurodiversity.com is not the source, but the hosting service, the source is life magazine. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 22:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• Neurodiversity.com is committing a breach of copyright, while claiming Fair Use. [5] See WP:ELNEVER; we should never be linking to that, btw (I am unaware if it was linked in the article, or just on talk, and not interested in checking, as I am not and do not intend to be involved in that article). Now that I am home (I was posting from an iPhone all day yesterday from the car), I'll add that I have an interest in making sure our articles that discuss current interventions for neuropsych conditions be as accurate and up to date as we can make them; I have no interest in diving in to the biography about the 50-year-old work of a man who has been dead for 10 years. That is, I will work to make sure we accurately reflect updated sources at discrete trial training, but I have neither the time nor the interest to dig in to Ole Ivar Lovaas any further, particularly with a battleground tone on its talk page. As I said, if I see a problem with ATC at DTT, I will address it there. I have seen no such problem there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• @Wikiman2718: As you have been told by others, making unevidenced accusations of harassment is a WP:PA. You have done this in the past and are still doing it. That you are making such attacks cannot be a reason why I, or any editor, should not be involved a topic you are interested in. You are now doing the same with ATC. In general, your approach to Wikipedia appears to be contaminated by a WP:USTHEM attitude which apparently leads you into imagining elaborate plots against you. The solution is clearly set out in WP:FOC; I strongly recommend following this for everybody's sake. Alexbrn (talk) 04:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

There was a ton of behavioral evidence that those accounts were connected. The sock’s username was even ATdevil, a pun on ATC. I’m going to try to get this re-opened. Wikiman2718 (talk) 12:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Facepalm Huh? Fluellenism is not "evidence", only of (as I wrote) your "imagining elaborate plots against you". A period of contrition from you would be appropriate at this time, after you have struck-out your many now-falsified accusations, and written your promised "big apology" to ATC that is. Alexbrn (talk) 12:47, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Then you acknowledge that the usernames are connected, but ascribe this to coincidence. Given that the account is an obvious sleeper sock (registered in 2013 with no edits until six days ago), your coincidence theory makes less sense. These accounts are connected. Wikiman2718 (talk) 18:09, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I am willing to work on CONTENT at discrete trial training, but I do not appreciate having personal attacks furthered on my talk page at a time when I am struggling to catch up with a backlog of work. Please stop using my talk page to create a battleground and continue personal attacks in spite of evidence to the contrary. Repeating: WP:FOC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Discrete trial training#Effectiveness

On the “Fringe” subsection of the effectiveness of the DTT talk page, I found two reliable recent sources that state ABA and DTT are evidence-based practices. Alexbrn approved of the sources. Any thoughts on the talk page? ATC ^{. Talk} 16:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC) ATC ^{. Talk} 16:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, ATC; I was in the car all day yesterday (hubby driving while I was posting from iPhone), and I am still trying to catch up. I have not forgotten you or the article, and promise to get back there just as soon as I can. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

No problem, Sandy! Take as long as you need. By the way, when I first started out and as you guided me on here back in 2007, I was only 13. Now, I'm 26. Talk about a long time that has passed since then! :) ATC ^{. Talk} 22:54, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Wow, I had no idea :) That is awesome, ATC ! Let's say you were a handful as a teenager, who turned out fine :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Haha, well back then I initially didn't know how to respond to my talk page, that Wikipedia had rules and policies, and what edit wars, sock puppeting, and copyright infringement were! :) ATC ^{. Talk} 01:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I am so glad to have this perspective, ATC; I think SarahSV might appreciate it, too. I am slowly catching up, and hope to get over to the article by tomorrow. I am so far behind in the things I owe people, I despair. But tomorrow is a new day. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Eh

How fitting. Drmies (talk) 01:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

My middle name. Drmies I used to have something installed that prevented this from happening. I don't remember what it was or where to look for it or why I no longer have it. Are you able to enlighten me? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

CLS Strategies

Hi Sandy, as a prolific Venezuela editor and veteran Wikipedian, have you noticed any coordinated editing patterns which may be consistent with [6]? 98.33.89.17 (talk) 16:21, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

No, I have seen no such thing on Wikipedia, but I have seen the clear-cut evidence that chavismo owns all of its content on Wikipedia via paid editing. I do not think Grayzone will write about those facts, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Do you find Milton Friedman's advocacy of a negative income tax to be dangerously Marxist? 98.33.89.17 (talk) 04:30, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Mouse invasion???

Heh. Such fun! The cats here are into "chase the fall mice invasion" also... but they are doing well on the catching of the mice. I woke up to provisions this morning... I'm pretty sure the cats don't think I'm capable of taking care of myself...--Ealdgyth (talk) 20:38, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh My Gosh, I can't even tell you the misery of what was supposed to be a nice relaxing trip to the cabin where I could catch up on Wikiwork. I shall email you the details, which are too graphic and personal for public consumption. Long story short, three days later I was without sleep and even further behind on Wikipedia, to the point of despair. And the mice still have to be dealt with on the next cabin trip ... <sigh> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:13, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Circumcision and HIV 2

Hello, we added my proposal to the article. But would love to hear your thoughts on it. Prcc27 (talk) 16:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

With consensus? I don’t want to wade back in to a mess ... ??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

It's not a rock solid consensus at the moment, but it is a consensus nonetheless. I'll get back to you when the talk page mess dies down. Prcc27 (talk) 20:38, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Much appreciated, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Just to give you an update, the Royal Dutch Medical Association, the AAP, and the CDC viewpoints were added with consensus. Please feel free to propose tweaking what we currently have. Adding the CPS and RACP viewpoints has also been proposed, but there isn't consensus for that yet. Prcc27 (talk) 22:52, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

To clarify, the consensus is strong- not weak. Prcc27 (talk) 04:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Prcc27 thanks for letting me know-- I added what I can, but don't have time to watchlist. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

You're fast!

Noted your message on my talk page and was about to go onto IRC to see if I could dig up someone with all the requisite skillsets, but it looks like you already succeeded. It's been a bit of a busy day, we're doing the cleanup work for Oversight after the OTRS downtime. Luckily we have a very good team pitching in to make sure everything has been done. Risker (talk) 17:03, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

not sure if I have someone yet ... can I forward an email to you? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Squirm FAC

Hello again! Apologies for the message as I know that you are incredibly busy. I have put up my review for the Squirm FAC, and I was wondering if you had any input about it and/or the article in general. I am trying my best to be as thorough as possible, but I do not want to repeat the same mistakes that I made in the first FAC review. I know that I put up a lot of comments in the FAC so apologies for that. I hope you are having a great end to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 01:18, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I was just looking at it ... very good review! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:19, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you for the very quick response! I just wanted to check with you because I do take your feedback seriously and I am trying my best to become better as a FAC reviewer. Thank you again for your help so far. Aoba47 (talk) 01:26, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Not Douglas MacAuthor

After three hours of research I've compiled what little info I could dig up at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Photo_of_Douglas_MacArthur?. Its not much, but at the very least, its a place to properly start looking into this. I am open to suggestions if you have any one where we go from here. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

MOS question

I asked a question at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#LEADALT and significance a few days ago, but I've not gotten a response. I think we need to settle the question in general, rather than article by article. If editors want both BritEng and AmEng in every opening sentence (whenever they aren't identical), or other slight variations, then the MOS should just say so. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I wouldn't have thought it possible to give a definitive answer. In some cases, the variation is so well known ("organize") that it's not worthwhile explaining it; when the term is a variant spelling and we can't assume readers will be familiar with the variants ("diarrhea", "airplane", "aluminum") it's probably worth including so readers don't think they've spotted a mistake and try in good faith to fix it; when the names are totally different ("acetaminophen", "Live Free or Die Hard", "semi") it's almost invariably going to be appropriate to put all the names prominently in the lead so readers don't think they've come to the wrong page. Asking at the MOS talkpage will just get a dozen people having an increasingly insane discussion, before ultimately coming to the conclusion that this isn't a matter for the MOS and needs to be handled on a case-by-case basis. ‑ Iridescent 19:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Before I answer, I will rant. This is precisely the kind of ABF, personalization and battleground that makes people not want to edit. I was gung-ho to get going on a plan for cleaning up all the medical FAs (User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox2), but the battleground attitude from that person and canvassed reinforcements has zapped me of any interest in continuing. It's about winning rather than discussing to come to consensus to find a solution that works across the board for all articles, and when Girth Summit tried to rein things in, he got fired at as well. So I've stopped caring. I will be darned if I am going to engage that kind of personalization and battleground over an apostrophe.

Having said that, yes, it is important to solve the big picture, because ... this is the second round. Keep in mind that Tourette syndrome inherited the problem quite simply because I gave her a courtesy notification that I mentioned the Down syndrome edit warring in my arbcase evidence. (20:27 April 15) Within hours of my courtesy notification to her talkpage, the TS article became the next battleground,[7] with all the same features seen at Down syndrome, and more. So, we have to solve this globally lest it move to other articles. And we have this situation in many places.

I was hoping that we would get feedback at the RFC talk page for how to best phrase a broader RFC, and what page to put it on. Nothing happening there. As you can see, we may need to go to the main WT:MOS page to get anyone to care.

But Iridescent is right ... how to best phrase it is problematic, because every situation is different. I have explained ad-nauseum (bludgeon is a theme lately?) that the TS situation is quite different from most medical conditions because NO ONE (on either side of the pond) uses the real names, and even the Brits most frequently drop the apostrophe. One size does not fit all. I endorsed the apostrophe at Down's, but Tourettte's just doesn't need it because Tourette's is a common abbreviation.

I could also post to WT:MED to get more feedback, but we've seen how that goes ... it won't solve the problem. I am beyond caring, but open to suggestions. You can see that I've mostly stopped editing ... it's stuff just like this that makes me give up and fade away. It is unbelievable that people can get so personal over an apostrophe. What if you put together a draft RFC in userspace and we post it to WT:MOS? I feel like it should encompass things like color/colour as well as Down/Down's, and this one. As far as I can tell, the MOS pages are mostly silent on this issue. It's like fighting over infoboxes or date delinking, and I didn't do either of those, and don't want to do this.

I just want to write articles. Ceoil has the right attitude. It's too easy to be chased out of here again, and I don't want to be doing this with the kind of unnecessary attitude we're facing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Iridescent, I posted a link at WT:MOS (to direct them to WT:MOSLEAD) three days ago, and I didn't get a single peep. I expected to get a dozen people with firm opinions, and I've gotten nothing. If this radio silence doesn't end, I may have to invoke Cunningham's Law, make a bold edit to the MOS, and wait for someone to object. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:31, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

This part of the frustration ... radio silence, complicated by dealing with an editor who refuses talk Page discussion. It more and more feels like there is no way to resolve the simplest of disputes in here. Even sadder, I remember When Down syndrome was a fine Featured article ... now rather than restoring content to its former glory, we worry over apostrophes. It’s foolishness, as our content deteriorates. I just restored Tourette syndrome with three Brit Eng editors, and not one of them had an issue with the apostrophe. Of course, they were more concerned with writing a top-notch article. Why write top content to end up spending so much time dealing with editors Who refuse to even discuss civilly over an apostrophe. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:20, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

In the particular cases of Tourette('s) and Down('s), I'd lean towards bolding both variants in the first sentence. Because the apostrophe variants are in such common circulation, and because common conditions like Alzheimer's, Lou Gehrig's disease and Parkinson's mean readers are used to the principle that "a condition named after a person is written in the possessive", so it's reasonable to assume that at least some readers will be confused as to why Wikipedia isn't following what they reasonably assumed was a medical convention. (FWIW, in 30 years in the UK I have never seen either written without apostrophe-s; this isn't some archaic affectation like the people who insist on using "connexion" and "shewed".) ‑ Iridescent 07:53, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I get that part, Iridescent but have a look at the article and the abbreviations used (which are most common). We already have Tourette's as an abbreviation, which is used 161 times in the article. I don't want to spell out the full Tourette syndrome 161 times, and if I switch all of those to just TS, doesn't it become tedious reading? I need to solve the overall picture-- where the lead is now all balled up in redundant use of 's, but what to use in the body of the article? If I remove the Tourette's abbreviation from the lead, and switch all abbreviations to TS, doesn't that move in the opposite direction of what the UK proponents want to achieve? I haven't removed the 's from the lead because, not gonna edit war an apostrophe, but I still have to solve the abbreviation issue. Down syndrome doesn't use abbreviations, and Down syndrome is not a featured article and doesn't have vetted prose. And say "Tourette's syndrome" ten times together out loud and you can see why it is shortenend to Tourette's. The double s does not flow-- a problem you don't have when the second word is "disease" like Alzheimer's. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

That article might make a good example, because there are three nearly identical names (Tourette syndrome, Tourette's syndrome, TS, Tourette's) in the first sentence. I suspect, though, that people would vote to keep 1, 2, and 3, rather than the original 1, 3, and 4.

And since there isn't a clear ENGVAR here, it wouldn't really deal with the celiac/coeliac cases. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Like I said, I am beyond caring how it is resolved, but just need to fix the rest of the article now and do not want to do it with the continual battleground and personalization. If we are left with only TS as an abbreviation, we will be left with tedious writing in exchange for adding one obvious word to the lead, but not my problem— the article has already run TFA, and the tedious overuse of TS will be someone else’s issue. How much happier would I be if we were instead cleaning up the hugely deficient FAs at most of these eponymous conditions ... Alzheimer, Huntington, Parkinson, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

My preference in that particular case would be "Tourette syndrome (TS), also known as Tourette's syndrome, is a…". If the possessive version isn't there, people who only know it by that name might reasonably be confused and think there's a letter missing. (Bear in mind that even in the US where the "Tourette" name is more common, a significant chunk of readers will be Nirvana fans who've been drawn to the topic by the song "Tourette's".) TL;DR summary; whatever the topic, if there's a variant spelling in common use and it's not such a well-known variation that all readers will be aware of it already, bold both in the first sentence. ‑ Iridescent 19:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but then, Iridescent would you think it useful to go through the entire article to remove all 161 instances of the abbreviation "Tourette's", converting them to either the full name, Tourette syndrome, or the abbreviation TS? That is, we would be eliminating all of the Tourette's from the article, because it's no longer the abbreviation listed, and we can't delete the TS abbreviation, because it's needed for TS-only and pure TS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

No, as it's obvious from context that "Tourette's" is a contraction of "Tourette's syndrome". It's no more problematic than the fact that Sunbeam Tiger just refers to "Tiger" rather than writing the name in full every time. ‑ Iridescent 21:36, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Iridescent. So I will propose on article talk that we drop the abbreviation from the lead, but keep the what-you-say is obvious abbreviation in the text, and see if that flies. I’ll do that when I’m ready to dive back in to that mess again ... within a day or two ... Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm trying to find the general rule here, so @Iridescent: Would you open Barclays with "Barclays, originally known as Barclay's..." ? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:41, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Barclays never had an apostrophe, so in that case no. For something that dropped the apostrophe years ago like Harrods I wouldn't; the purpose in this case isn't to avoid confusion (nobody searching for "Selfridge's" is going to think they're on the wrong page when they land on Selfridges), but to avoid the risk of good faith editors trying to correct it. Thus for something that only recently dropped the apostrophe like Waterstones, I would include it to make it obvious from the start that the name has recently changed and this isn't an error on Wikipedia's part. (If you're a fan of lame edit wars, watchlist this company which is called "Dunkin" in the US and "Dunkin Donuts" in the rest of the world, and enjoy the endless arguments over which name is an error.) As with all these "name variation" things, there isn't necessarily going to be a hard-and-fast rule; there will always be some cases where the story of how the apostrophe came to be lost or added is itself an interesting enough part of the story to warrant inclusion in the lead. (A good example would be Tim Hortons, where the dispute with Quebec nationalists that led to the dropping of the apostrophe is the only interesting thing that ever happened to the company.) ‑ Iridescent 17:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

It sounds like your general rule might be to put a variation in the first sentence if omitting it is likely to attract good-faith corrections otherwise. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposed ... [8] ... WhatamIdoing, if adopted, this simplifies the bigger picture for the RFC, since TS is unique in rejection of DSM/WHO names. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Well. Anyway. @WhatamIdoing and Iridescent:, what is good timing for beginning to design an RFC? The problem here is that TS is just not a good example, since commonname for it rejects both ICD and DSM, but we need to get this resolved. I suggest a broader RFC, at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#RFC on article titles with spelling variations SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I think that the general question at LEADALT needs to be settled before trying to handle it at MEDMOS. Three people have replied there so far. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I did not realize I had not watchlisted that page ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Essay

I hope I didnt edit this too far. Its still unclear if you are trying to bring in new editors to place random shots, or guide them towards a structured process where they get constructive feedback to allow them get past SNOW (some hope, the guidance you gave Spicy is rare indeed). Or is it a "what to expect guide". To say, on the arty side of the house, we have had some great first time successful nomintors in the last two years, but with a follow up rate of (guessing) about 50%. Ceoil (talk) 23:27, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding, Ceoil; I took a few days off to Go To The Woods! You could never "edit too far", and I so appreciate your help with my prose. I had several specific reasons/purposes for writing User:SandyGeorgia/Achieving excellence through featured content, so will spell them out here in case you want to work any further, and I will re-visit the essay once I'm home to see if any of this was lost.

1. Tom (LT) asked me to write something very specific to Anatomy for the Anatomy newsletter: I decided to generalize it further to health/medical content, as I know little of anatomy, and I wanted to address the broader medical issues occurring wrt the FA process.
2. There have been several disastrous medical FACs presented in the last five years-- disastrous because they were ill-prepared, no one was guiding them, and the idea of how much distance there is between a GA and an FA has been lost. Responses for miserable failures at FAC took the form of misstatements about FAC, and editors turned to GA, with guaranteed easy results.
3. There has been considerable bad and faulty publicity about the FA process as it relates to health content, and I wanted to deal quite specifically with the false memes.
4. Biggest reason: I fear that content review processes in general on Wikipedia no longer have the meaning they once did. I am unsure if it is too late to save FAC from the damaging effects of the last five years, but I felt I should at least put in my two cents on the area I edit. Besides that FAC became a clique of prose nitpickers, who rarely looked in depth at all the criterion, it seems that many editors prefer the nothingness of a GA (one editor's opinion) to going for the best. DYK always a mess, PR dead, GA meaningless, and FACs languishing with no review. So I added my voice, just as ...
5. Along comes Spicy with an extremely accessible good start at the GA level at complete blood count, so I had an excellent example for how the process should work; that is, with a well prepared article. The disappointing factor is you darn near have to beg for reviews these days, resulting in the same thing that I criticized about the previous five years (buddies only reviewing articles for their buddies), so the next reason I finally committed something to an essay is that ...
6. Hopefully I will have left something useful for aspiring medical editors for the next time I give up and disappear for a few more years. If that happens, you know where to find me!
7. On the other hand, if we somehow manage to miraculously re-invigorate FAC, I wish we could get WP:FCDW going again. Here we are, a process with no leader, no newsletter, no Dispatches, and no attempt to address whatever it is that ails FAC these days.

Thanks again for the help, and I'll revisit it in a few days. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:28, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Noriega

Hi SandyGeorgia, you said at FAC that you had been preparing some comments about the article (I didn't get the ping, for whatever reason: I just saw the nom had been archived). I have rarely found peer review helpful, and wasn't planning on opening one, especially considering there were no comments at FAC whatsoever. I would be interested in your comments if you've already gone to the trouble of reviewing the article, though; may I trouble you to post them on the talk? I will do my best to address them. I was honestly a little surprised to see you thought a GAR may be in order; it was reviewed at ACR too, after all; but I never object to genuinely thorough critique, so I'd be interested to see what you have to say. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

My comments on Manuel Noriega will be quite long, and would be an appropriate use of a peer review; it's unfortunate that I didn't finish in time for the FAC, but any chance to re-invigorate PR as we did with Wikipedia:Peer review/Squirm/archive1 and Wikipedia:Peer review/Edward Thomas Daniell/archive1, to better prepare articles for FAC, provides a good example for how to help the overall FA process function better. I haven't yet gathered together all the pieces I emailed myself from my iPad, but will be driving all day tomorrow (home from the cabin), and need a few days to finish. I recommend opening a peer review, as the best way to process through the volume of commentary I have, and so that you can get more eyes to deal with everything; I believe more eyes than can be found on article talk are needed. Will check in with you when I am home and can finish ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

That seems a little backwards to me; surely peer review exists to help articles, and not vice versa? Or am I missing the larger picture here? I have only been active at FAC for four or so years, so it's possible I'm not understanding the context for wanting to put effort into peer review. However, I don't have substantive objections to the process itself, so I'll go ahead an open one, and I look forward to seeing your comments there. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:40, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Peer review should exist to help articles, but it has gone under-utilized at FAC in recent years, where FAC has turned into peer review. The two peer reviews I linked above give good examples of the work needed to prepare for FAC, and that can be done via a structured peer review after a FAC is archived. I can get on it day after tomorrow, although I can process some of the pieces from a hotspot on my iPad as we are driving home tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:46, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Please take your time; I have full work days on Wednesday and Thursday anyway. The peer review is here, for your convenience. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:56, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks; I promise to have my review up by day after tomorrow, although I misplaced a few of the sources in the process of emailing them from my iPad to myself while I was traveling, which has slowed me down. If I can't reconstruct those sources/commentary, I will just go forward without them, so as not to hold you up any further. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

This is another version of pre-FAC (and in that case, also post-FAC) peer review. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:06, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus I haven't responded there as I am at a loss for which way to go next. Having already extensively engaged the article, I don't know what I can add. And I'm becoming more and more concerned about how hard it is to get reviewers to engage at FAC :( :( I guess the only thing I can wonder out loud is if there is a way to lower the amount of technical information and scrupulous citing of each piece in your volcano writing, to encourage more reviewers to engage, but then I can't really suggest that, since it is not clear that is a/the problem. One has to beg reviewers to engage any topic these days. (That is different from my case at Noriega, where my review is so long it has taken days to prepare, and I lost pieces because of my travel/iPad editing.) I wonder if Spicy would be willing to give an opinion at Wikipedia:Peer review/Laguna del Maule (volcano)/archive1, since you so kindly engaged the source review at complete blood count. I hate asking Spicy, since it feels like we are being forced to something akin to quid pro quo at FAC because of the lack of reviewers, and this triggers my criticism that certain cliques at FAC would only review each other's articles, but perhaps he would be willing :( :( Do you think it might have helped if I had stated at the archived FAC that I was satisfied, but too involved to support? I really am at a loss for what is stalling FAC so badly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I'll take a look. (Some of my comments may be stupid). Spicy (talk) 17:25, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't know either what the problem wit FAC is currently. Perhaps the still ongoing COVID mess? I am guessing that my scarce participation there over the last half-year might make me part of the problem, though ... but going out now and reviewing stuff in the hope of getting some quid-pro-quo reviews is chancy and QPQ-type FAC reviews are a problem in their own right ... so dunno. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:11, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Hermandad Lírica

I was inspired by that other article to make a translation, Hermandad Lírica. Please look at it if you are so inclined. --evrik ^(talk) 03:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I made a few grammatical, typo, and translation adjustments, but did not check the sources for too close paraphrasing or copyvio. When translating someone else’s work, it is important to make sure the original writer was true to the source without plagiarizing. Were you able to check that yourself, or did you need me to ? Saludos, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:06, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I did to the best of my ability. I did rephrase a lot. Please fell free to chack. --evrik ^(talk) 22:17, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

New editor "patrol"

Hope all is well with you and your family. After your note from July, I definitely took a step back and remembered that I, having read Wikipedia for years, seen it in the news, and made some minor changes as IP, was very fortunate to find the existence of WP:Pharmacology and WT:MED to ask for help/review. Many editors are not so fortunate and are met with reversions, "policy vomit" (such as just saying "needs WP:MEDRS, this isn't okay per WP:CITEWATCH, see WP:RSP", etc), and thus likely get discouraged or even threatened with blocks/bans for it. I'm mostly curious if there's any way you know of to "watch" for these new editors making medical edits, and potentially catch them for personalized intervention early on if their edits are reverted/undone by someone, thus potentially increasing the number of medical editors on Wikipedia.

Slightly off topic, but this is coming up now for me because I've personally tried to get a few colleagues interested in the articles I compiled re: the subject of medical injections - people ranging from 20ish years old and in school at the time to professionals with 20+ years experience - and the response I've gotten from all of them is either "it's too hard to edit" or something along the lines of "too many policies/rules" or "I tried it before and I got told to piss off with a bunch of rules that don't make sense to me". For all of them, though, they expressed reserved interest in potentially returning after I explained my experience with helpful editors who, while they were enforcing rules similar to what medical professionals use mentally every day, were nice and helpful in explaining them. Many people don't realize why "no primary sources" (well, very rarely) is a policy here - because they read primary sources every day. But when you explain to them "yes, we read primary sources, but we do not use one or two primary sources to override years of reviews/meta-analysis that says otherwise - we wait until enough primary evidence exists to override our past thoughts on the matter" - they seem to get it. In fact, I had someone ask me why our COVID articles seem to be lagging behind - but when I explained why (including the "we are an encyclopedia for the general public, not the breaking news journal of medicine"), I got virtually unanimous understanding. I'll stop giving examples of these interactions here now, but just wanted to provide some background.

One thing I noticed is that WP:MED has a "getting started" section that quite literally only links 4 policies - with no "new editor friendly" explanations at all. One of those "getting started" articles is even geared towards other WP editors, not new editors, so it's hardly a "getting started" article at all imo! {{subst:WPMED welcome}} is basically the same - basically all links links links with the only "explanation" a 2008 "signpost article". It also doesn't make very clear how to get help - it says go to the talk page, but that's hard for many newer editors to do. I get completely the desire to not "overwhelm" new editors with tons of information on their talk page, but surely links to specific, short (500 words at most) explanations of various things, or even an comprehensive "new medical editor" FAQ would help? Maybe I'm just not finding it, but I definitely did try - if I can't find it after a few months here, then new editors definitely aren't finding it if it exists.

So, I guess here's my final question: Where would be the best place to propose changes to new member welcoming - WT:MED, template talk page, or some other place - and what's the best process for "drafting" a template change - use my userspace, use a template page, etc?

Thanks in advance for your help with these questions, and while I could ping about 200 other editors you seem to always know who would be best to answer so I will kindly ask if you wouldn't mind pinging the specific people you think would be best to answer or provide more information here. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@Berchanhimez: after a few days off for a series of minor but irritating IRL issues, I am struggling to catch up. I'm making a To Do list, and I consider responding to this the most important/useful thing on that list, but I am pushing it down the list so I can catch up first on the easier-to-do tasks. This issue deserves my/our full attention, so I promise I will get to it once I've caught up everywhere else. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Hopefully less irritation now - you can ignore Talk:Resveratrol if you want - I think we got it figured out and came to a conclusion. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

One less to do is a relief, since today has been slow progress! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Please do not worry too much about this inquiry/"project" - while it's important to me and you, it seems to have gone unnoticed for months, if not years - thus another few days is definitely not likely to hurt any more. Please let me know if there's anything I can do to help you with any catching-up - you can also email me if that's easier than here. You did me a great favor when I first started and I haven't yet been able to repay it, so I'm happy to help with any "grunt work" or little projects you have that are hard or tedious to do :) -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

You are too kind :) The issue you raise is what matters most, and is why I am trying to get other stuff done and out of the way so that I can really focus on it.

If you really really really want to do some miserable work, you could go through Pheochromocytoma and flag all of the primary sources :) A lot of the text may be citeable to secondary sources, but student editors unfortunately used primary sources for most of the article, sample here. After I've flagged all the primary sources, I need to make a post to talk about the numerous tone and organizational problems in that article. Students are told to read MEDMOS and MEDRS, but it looks like they rarely do, and then they go forward with no guidance from WP:MED, until they suddenly want the article re-assessed as ... higher quality than it is in spite of all their work.

Or, if that kind of boring busy work isn't your cup of tea, you could also look at the mess I waded in to here, with a warning that it is at WP:ANI and at WP:SPI, and that ATC is someone I have mentored since their earliest days, and I know to be a good-faith editor who will listen to reason. Nonetheless, that page is a bit of a battleground, withe some pushing of strong viewpoints, and tiring.

Ah, the fun of Wikipedia. But I end up sticking around because of the good new editors who show up-- like you! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Will work on Pheochromocytoma tonight and tomorrow - rare day off work altogether so I should be able to get that done throughout the day tomorrow. Will tag with {{primary source inline}} and if iI notice any glaring problems try to fix them :) -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

You are amazing! I will give you my first-born. If the Air Force will let me :) As to why the issues you raise are so important, maybe you are following my work with User:Memdmarti, a good-faith topic expert. It is because of this work with Dan (and earlier same with User:Eyoungstrom) that I am realizing how problematic are all of the issues you raise and that we must figure out what to do about this. There is so much we understand and take for granted about Wikipedia practices, policies and guidelines that is complete gibberish to new editors, and yet we need to retain content experts. On top of that problem that exists for all of Wikipedia, we have the additional primary vs. secondary sources in medicine problem. That's why I want to get my other work done so as to focus on this. But then ... if we retained more content experts, I wouldn't have so much other work to do ... Catch-22. Anyway, I will make a longer response to you, but perhaps not til Wednesday, as I have the six-hour drive home from the cabin tomorrow, and then medical appt's Wednesday ... Perhaps WhatamIdoing will resurrect in the meantime her post to WT:MED from a month or so ago that explained how to locate new editors from the tools we already have. I gave up on that, because the first new editors I encountered sent me into The Black Hole of Despair ... there are only 24 hours in a day, and I don't have time to take on what is seen in most new editors one encounters: COI, POV pushing, and a whole lotta mentoring needed! More later, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Just a forenote - I only had enough energy for that one section tonight (surprisingly, it takes a lot more than I expected to plug in to pubmed and actually evaluate the sources themselves). Please do not worry about the timing of this as much - heck, it's taken me months to actually realize that I was an anomaly in new medical editors, a few more days isn't going to hurt. I have a theory that has no proof whatsoever behind it, but I think it'd likely hold true however... that most new medical editors that look to have a COI or "pov" they are pushing are actually just attempting to add their real-life experience to the editing process. Someone who's treated a thousand or so patients and 80% of those patients claim that glucosamine works for them - well that doctor may very well want to come attempt to "fix" that information on Wikipedia. Is that a "pov pushing"? I don't really consider it that - because it's not so much a "point of view" as an experience. Likewise (this is a hypothetical, not sure if it actually happens/exists), you may have a pharmacist show up who's taught in Pharm.D. school that generic drugs are just dandy and fine - and so they may try to remove information regarding differences in excipients or quality control that are sourced appropriately to MEDRS reviews - because they think it's "wrong" simply because they don't understand why it's what it is. Long story short, I think a majority of medical editors are good - and if there were simply a way to have a dynamic list of "reverted edits from new editors on medical articles" that would help greatly with targeted outreach.

Regardless, I hope your drive and appointments go well, and I will continue working on marking primary sources in that article tomorrow. For now, I shall be taking my daily comatose state time (also known as sleep) :) -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 06:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Yep, flagging up issues in student editing takes GOBS more time than it would take to just rewrite the article from scratch; it is frustrating, but I feel I have to leave a list on talk explaining all the issues and why it can't be assessed higher, and I really appreciate your help. Sourcing and tone are the most significant problems there (although I have already removed and addressed the worst of the tone problems).

I have similar ideas about the POV/COI thing, as I realize just how difficult it is for new editors to grasp the way things work in here. Maybe you can answer a question: why did you "get it"? What made the difference for you? Did you participate for half a century as an IP or something ? :) :) You seem to have missed the newbie stage (mine was eternal, and I used the HelpMe template enough times to set a record). Sleep well ! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, all! Quick note to say that I am alive, healthy (so far) despite all of the COVID-19 issues at my home university, and I will be picking up the ball and re-engaging with this in about 10 days (helping colleagues with a Sept 9 deadline, and still adjusting my teaching). I haven't disappeared, and sorry that I have not had more bandwidth. Best to all in the meantime! (10 days feels like another eon at the speed Wiki moves!) Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom (talk) 14:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, I never really thought about significant editing until after having seen articles in the news over the past few years re: Wikipedia's response to some controversies and medical articles - and figured I'd give it a go... but I definitely didn't want to screw it up. I saw an article in some news somewhere which mentioned the Wikipedia Medicine project or something similar, so after I dove in with lente insulin I went ahead and searched for a WikiProject that would cover it - finding WP:PHARMACOLOGY and then later realizing that WP:MED covers basically all of it too. I've seen editors with 200,000 edits, heck even some over a million - and I can't ever see myself getting there because even now I'm still spending lots of time looking for policies or guidelines or template documentations etc to try and make sure I'm doing things right. Back when I started, you can see I made a stub at lente insulin on 11 May, and took the entire rest of that day to actually get it to a somewhat viable length article.

Long story short, I think having seen articles in the news which covered "talk pages" and "wiki projects" where you can ask help is actually what enabled me to be confident enough to dive right in. This in addition to the fact that I'd been fixing typos/etc forever as I saw them (nothing more than a word or two change ever) as IPs so I kind-of had a concept of what the edit screen looked like.

So, why I "got it"? I'm not really sure - you'd think I'd be the person adding these primary studies without attributing them... but I guess it boils down to me realizing this: Wikipedia isn't the resident's table rounds, nor is it the bedside discussion with a patient - meaning basically that Wikipedia is more like the "medical textbook" - which doesn't list every study ever done. When there's only a few studies, we say that and, if the reader here is a clinician, they'll use their judgement to make a decision - we don't make the decisions for them, we just present the most complete and attributed if necessary information possible. I also note that quick intervention from people - the names I remember being you, RexxS, WhatAmIDoing, and BlueRasberry (left a "thanks for the new article" on my talkpage) were very encouraging and allowed me to build a mental list of those I could ask for help (which I've been doing, as you know ha ha). I'd also add that I most definitely have not finished "getting it" yet - I'm still making some mistakes but I'm still trying to improve. Thanks for the vote of confidence :).

Small PS, pheochromocytoma is done being marked through the Management section, I will try to get to the rest tonight, but it's turning out to be a little more than I thought it would. I've been marking them as I can, or changing the text to attribute the primary study where I feel it's important to include but would need attribution per WP:MEDRS. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Berchanhimez, I sometimes look at this link to find promising editors. If you like doing this, then this longer list might be better. WPMED would really benefit from someone reviewing these changes, salvaging whatever can be salvaged (most of it – most new folks are very grateful for help with the most basic wikitext fixes), and inviting promising (and even semi-promising) folks to stop by WT:MED or WT:PHARM for help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:12, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Berchanhimez I am finally turning my attention to your original post. And I am EVER so grateful for the work you did at pheochromocytoma, as I was beginning to despair that I would ever catch up; I sincerely appreciate that you did enough that I should be able to finish up a talk post over there explaining improvements still needed, should the same educational course take it on next term.

On finding promising new editors, here is the old post in archives from WAID-- I am unsure if this info is any different from what she gave you above. I know if anyone takes on that sort of work, it is really worth it for the viability of WP:MED. A little bit of background.

When I noticed you were a promising new editor, it seemed worthwhile to bring you into the fold, and you seem to be indicating here that was helpful; if we can do more of that, we can begin to rebuild WPMED. For a period of more or less five years, WPMED lost its focus on building top content, and turned into a Project focused externally on what was, in my opinion, encouraging the spread of deteriorating content to multiple languages. It also became focused on "whack-a-mole" (going after the POV pushers and quacks) with less than policy-compliant methods; when I posted to your talk about the akathisia editor, I was concerned that you (a promising new editor) had seen that sort of behavior in others and thought it the norm. I meant to point out that it shouldn't be the norm, and we need to get back to doing the hard work of bringing promising editors up to speed. Along with that, I've realized how very confusing Wikipedia can be to academics and physicians, and am aware of how much more we need to do.

You brought up the page WP:MED, as not really giving new editors the help they need to get started, and that is my BINGO point about the misdirection WP:MED took about five years ago, when it became more externally focused. This Is A Huge Issue We Must Correct. I think the editors who understand that now are Colin, WhatamIdoing and there is a recent WT:MED post from Tom (LT) about the misdirection the project took when it became more externally focused. So, you've hit on a big problem, but solving this problem will have to happen in baby steps, because it's still a bit of a hot potato after Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine, where I more or less raised all the same points mentioned by Tom (LT) in my evidence at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence.

I have been chipping away at trying to get the main page of WP:MED back to something more functional and useful for editors ON en.Wikipedia, as it had become almost entirely focused on editors OFF en.Wikipedia spreading external apps. We still have much more work to do to rebuild a well-functioning WikiProject, but I see it happening slowly but surely. There is much work to be done to rewrite both of our guideline pages, which were made less than effective over the last five years, at WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS. But your main question about where to start gets to the heart of the matter: we need to start by re-building a core of good and knowledgeable editors, who aren't interested in being internet bullies or playing whack-a-mole, rather who are mainly interested in building quality content on en.Wikipedia.

Where should you start work on a template? User:Berchanhimez/sandbox/WelcomeTemplate. Those who are following my page can follow your work there, and can post suggestions at User talk:Berchanhimez/sandbox/WelcomeTemplate. When you get it to a state we are happy with, then you could propose it at WT:MED, and we can hopefully work it in to what should become ongoing re-drafting of WP:MED, WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS, to get the Project back on the footing it was on five years ago, focused on retaining good editors and building top content.

I hope I've answered your question, but I have been so scattered because of trying to catch up, so please insist if I haven't given you the info you need. I also suggested to Ajpolino that an interview of newer editors in the WPMED newsletter could be very instructive for all of us ... thinking of you, Memdmarti, PainProf, Eyoungstrom, who can give us ideas of what we're doing right, what we're doing wrong, what would be helpful, etc. I've spent a lot of time with Memdmarti and Eyoungstrom, and it would be very interesting to see how your experience is different or similar to theirs. All the bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi all, stopping by because I was pinged. Berchanhimez, a much belated welcome! Apologies that I've not been around as much this month; busy month in real life. We should find a quiet week to have a larger conversation at WT:MED about our goals and priorities. Bringing new editors into the fold should be a top priority. Please try to note things that confused, challenged, and annoyed you as you got used to editing here. You'll find that all too soon you become blind to the initial hurdles, just like the rest of us. In the meantime, feel free to ping me if there's any way I can be useful! Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 22:06, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Ajpolino, thanks for the welcome :) - I started a welcome that I would have liked to get and would've been helpful had I not found WP:MED real quick to ask my questions to - but I completely see how it may be undesirable to include the FAQ portion in the welcome template - in which case I'm fine splitting it into two separate pages and working more just on the top part (the welcome part) - ideas? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:46, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

@Ajpolino: remember when I suggested you interview new and active editors for the WPMED newsletter? This thread gives you material ... Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Fixing the WPMED templates

To kind of give an overall update, we have User:Berchanhimez/sandbox/WelcomeTemplate and User:Berchanhimez/sandbox/New Med FAQ - ideally linking to the second from the first and having it visible in other locations, and the first being a template which can be given to new editors who have made edits (or problematic edits) in the medical field. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:17, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Berchan, lots of thoughts, I have to do some morning errands and will come back to this shortly, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Berchanhimez: I have many oberservations, which I'll enumerate for response:

1. I've worked over the last month to try to get the WP:MED page closer to something useful for newbies, as basic information was very hard to find, and was obscured by voluminous amounts of the page referencing instead off-en.Wikipedia projects. I'd be much happier in the long run if we worked towards removing Sections 10, 11 and 12 entirely, because all of those have moved and all are linked in Section 9 already. They are taking up space on the main page at the expense of everyday routine helpful tasks, information, and maintenance items that regular and newbie editors will need. The main WP:MED page became horribly user-unfriendly and unuseful over the last five years, focused instead on off-en.Wikipedia ventures. But that overhaul is for another day: for now, we can find the templates on the main page under Tools --> Templates at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Tools#Templates.
2. Considering the templates we already have, I suggest that your work should not be adding new welcome templates, rather replacing what is there now under "For other editors". We will need to gain consensus on this at WT:MED, once you have everything finished and ready to go.
3. While looking at the templates we have, I was shocked to find Template:EasyEn, which is disputed and a breach of broader Wikipedia guidelines. It was "Kept" on three !votes two years ago,[9] and should be sent to TFD again. Unsurprisingly, it is not used anywhere. I think we should delete it now from the project pages.
4. So, finally, turning my attention to your (excellent) template work. First, do you want to authorize others to work in your sandbox, or would you rather have others enter comments on talk, while you control the editing? It's your choice, but I highly recommend bringing in at this stage several other users. WhatamIdoing is key in anything at WP:MED. Colin has a remarkable clarity in prose and ability to make pages very user friendly, and I suggest having him help edit. And then I think it essential to consult a few more newbies like Memdmarti or PainProf. All too often, we generate these templates among experienced users, failing to understand the points that really hang up newbies.
5. For my own feedback on your work so far.
   1. If you want others to edit your userspace, I would go in and do some WP:MOS cleanup (things like WP:ENDASHes instead of hyphens). But Colin is such an excellent copyeditor that I may not be needed, if you authorize him to edit.
   2. Your first paragraph at User:Berchanhimez/sandbox/WelcomeTemplate is too long: students, for example, don't read anything, but Colin can bring that sort of clarity and brevity to prose.
   3. I also suggest setting these up so that one template can be transcluded within others-- that is, a basic welcome template could be transcluded to another version for students, or another version for someone we see getting off on the wrong foot, so we don't have to do everything twice or thrice.
   4. At User:Berchanhimez/sandbox/New Med FAQ, my pet peeve about cite ref is triggered :) :) For YEARS, basically all medical editing used the Diberri, now Boghog template, and I despise having to edit around four lines of code that contain fifteen times two = 30 (first and last) author names. For YEARS, all medical articles had a standard of more than five authors truncated to three, et al, vancouver style, and almost every WP:FA in the health realm is written that way. I don't want to encourage newbies to use one style, without making some mention of the alternate Boghog template. On almost every established medical article, if they use that built-in tool, they will be breaching WP:CITEVAR. We don't have to go full on to explain CITEVAR to them, but Featured articles must have consistent citations, and it is irritating as all heck to have to play secretary and clean up citations for other editors on FAs. We should somehow address this before recommending that miserable format.
      1. Separately, we have a pending problem that we are going to have to address sometime. For years, medical editors have argued that we don't have to cite pages on lengthy journal articles. This is bogus, and I don't know why we've gotten away with this, when no other content area can breach WP:V in this way. WP:FAC rejects it; see Complete blood count, Buruli ulcer and dementia with Lewy bodies for how we should be citing sources, with sections or page numbers when journal articles are lengthy. Most medical content is breaching a core policy, WP:V, and we may as well start educating students and new editors to do it right.
   5. And, finally, I think the best thing we can do for newbie editors is to point them to examples of our top quality articles: nothing like an example to show what is done and not done on Wikipedia. Most new editors will have no realization that we have an assessment system, and that some articles are better than others. Complete blood count will be an FA soon, Chagas disease just passed FAR, and our most recent Health and medicine FA is dementia with Lewy bodies. If we also want something in the neuropsych realm, Tourette syndrome was overhauled this year, and Graham's Introduction to viruses was also overhauled and is quite useful. I think once CBC passes FAC, you should work in these as examples for newbies to study.

That's all my thoughts for now! VERY FINE WORK !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I think it's a case of "too long, didn't read". A lot of websites sort of dribble information out over time, and I wonder whether that might be a better (if possibly more labor-intensive) approach. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:20, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I think Colin can bring enough clarity that it might get read ... good prose entices the reader to keep reading. And I'd like to hear from Memdmarti and PainProf. As a newbie, Berchan felt this kind of info would have helped him, so I want to listen seriously to that! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Good prose entices people to keep reading ...if they start. If your eyes glaze over and all you see is an oblong gray blur, then it doesn't matter how good the prose is, because you won't read any of it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:55, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

May not be able to work on this for a day or so but popping in from my phone to say yes anyone can edit in the two user space pages as they feel it would help! -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, my name keeps getting mentioned as some kind of prose wizard, which is undeserved. Yes I can have a go at writing or copyediting, but actually my main approach to reviewing text over the years is to point out issues or raise questions and usually the author can improve the text themselves. I agree with WhatamIdoing that the text is long. It is also rather scary. To be honest, "we do have some guidelines that are very important for editing medical articles, and failure to follow them may result in your hard work being undone by another editor" is imo the main problem with WP:MED: it is way too hostile to newbies and (as we saw very recently) it will happily go through your contribs reverting all your work for not being 100% in compliance. I wonder if our welcome template shouldn't just be a hearty welcome and a promise to help you if you have problems, and some links.

WhatamIdoing noted at another discussion that many medical leads contain text nearly all contributed by one author. I don't know which part of "Wikipedia is written collaboratively" that WP:MED didn't understand but this is way too close to the Scots Wikipedia fiasco, where the wiki failed to attract/retain sufficient knowledgable writers, one editor wrote half of the text, and, well you can read the article. WP:MED desperately needs to get back to being a collaborative writing project that is fully emersed in the wider English Wikipedia culture and which welcomes new editors.

Oh, and wrt "Sections 10, 11 and 12" of the WP:MED page, I fully agree. I think someone thought Wiki Project Med Foundation and WP:MED confused and thought they were the same thing. Wiki Project Med Foundation has moved off to another wiki. WP:MED is an English Wikipedia project and should focus on being that. -- Colin°^Talk 10:15, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think there is much evidence that the current "wider English Wikipedia culture" is one that "welcomes new editors". Our retention rate is one of the lowest out of all Wikipedias. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:58, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, Maybe I could replace that whole "scary" part (which I'll explain in a moment) with a simple "If you've gotten a notification your edit was undone, you can find some frequent reasons here", linking specifically to a "new editor commonly undone edits" (ex: primary source, advice tone, dated information, etc).

The reason I took the "scary" tone (which I'm not sure I'd call it that, but I respect it may look different to others) is because I think part of the problem may be that new editors are jumping right in without realizing that anyone can edit means anyone can undo your edits too - and thus they just dive right in making the edits they think need made without actually looking into whether they need made. I agree with WhatamIdoing below that WP is not very welcoming to new editors - the only reason I was actually welcomed and felt it is because I knew (from seeing in the news) that WikiProjects were a thing and I took a gamble and posted on the talk page of WT:MED and WT:PHARM.

I have already politely poked two users (well, hopefully in a polite manner, and regardless both seem to have realized their mistake) for using rollback against new users when the edits could've just as easily been fixed by minor edits - rollback of all things, which from the page describing it is only for pure vandalism. Unfortunately, I don't think either of the two new editors that had rollback used against them are still around, even after I tried to post on their talkpages with some help. I know nobody owns things on Wikipedia, but is there not some way we can rein in the use of rollback/undo by users outside WP:MED on MED pages? Maybe some sort of message we can send to those who are using it where simple fixes could be applied by someone more familiar with the rules to just fix the problem instead of undoing it altogether? Idk.

But knowing people will use rollback/undo on new editors is why I included that part - because if we tell them up front about collaboration and that "undo doesn't mean you're bad or wrong", maybe they'll not be so hurt and leave when their edits inevitably do get undone. I think this project is collaborative - at least from what I've seen, though I haven't dove into the "arbitration" that SandyGeorgia linked to me so maybe I'm missing big things going on. From my new experience, it was collaborative and help was literally thrown at me without any prejudice or anger for my mistakes - to me it just seems that a lot of times these new editors are pushed away by reversions/undo before they even have a chance. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:38, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Colin, I meant to ping you too but apparently that doesn't work with the template that replylink uses as a default, so here's a ping :) -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, my goodness, I've royally effed these pings - Colin, sorry for the two pings, and sorry for somehow labelling you as WhatamIdoing. I'm not sure how I messed that one up, so hopefully WhatamIdoing gets this ping - if not sorry for all these extra replies and junk. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing I did say "and" not "that". Only on WP:MED would you find a scheme to usurp collaboratively edited content with commercial videos that nobody can edit, or members arguing all the way up to Arbcom that longstanding Wikipedia policy does not apply to their editing domain because Big Pharma are killing people. Anyway, my 2p is that the welcome template should do that. Berchanhimez, I'm not an expert on policy but IIRC, using rollback for undoing good faith edits is such a no-no that if reported at AN, the rollback privilege is instantly and unquestionably revoked until such time the user later demonstrates they know what it is for. Berchanhimez, unfortunately Wikipedia got into a mode where those medical editors who simply reverted everything on their watchlist that wasn't perfect were held up as warriors holding the thin blue line against Wikipedia descending into chaos and alternative weirdness. Of course we should have high standards, but also we should not expect everyone to be up-to-speed on their first edit. It isn't easy. I'm not sure our template should be: "Welcome to our Photography club. Please don't mind too much if someone punches you in the face for taking a photo that doesn't comply with the Rule of thirds, they mean well..." -- Colin°^Talk 21:08, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Berchan, we'll probably need to take baby steps towards getting us all at WPMED on a footing we can endorse; lots of adjustments are needed, and too much at once may not be the way to go. Perhaps you would look at the existing templates and see which parts of your wording could be used to augment what is there now? And Colin is right that rollback should never be used except for obvious vandalism, and if editors persistently do so, they lose the right. WAID, {{tq|Our retention rate is one of the lowest out of all Wikipedias} is probably an example of sampling bias. Since the English Wikipedia is the most known and the first google result, it would be expected that we get a number more of editors who wade in but don't stay, for example, those who realize they aren't comfortable posting in a non-native language, after they posted to the English version because it is the most viewed, even if its hard for them to contribute in English. At least I see indications of that in my Spanish-language editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:07, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm liking the idea of shortening the instruction section to something like "If you're having problems, see the FAQ; if you want help, ask at WT:MED".

If we want to retain people, then the mw:Growth team seems to think that new editors like to hear that their contributions make a difference. They're looking at automated reports on page views, e.g., "The page has been viewed 100 times since your edit". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Berchanhimez, you look like you can handle scary stuff, so if you're struggling with pings, I suggest copying the first two lines out of m:User:WhatamIdoing/global.js and pasting them into User:Berchanhimez/common.js. Reload the page (whatever combination of key presses it says for your web browser at the top of the page), and then find a talk page. Click a [ reply ] link to see the new toy. Then (this is the really crucial point) click the "Visual" tab, so it gives you a toolbar. After that, every time you use this tool and type the @ symbol, it'll let you search for names, and the pings will all work perfectly.

Work-me is trying to convince the PM to enable this as a Beta Feature here, but it's been uphill work. The scale of enwiki can be daunting. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:22, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@Berchanhimez: an article I watch was just hit with this improper use of rollback by a prolific medical editor; checking their contribs, I see it is quite a problem. I have to ponder how to handle this. This editor did not respond well to the arb evidence, so I do not relish being the person to bring this problem forward. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Maybe this is the real problem.. it's not "welcoming" the new users, it's that more established people are not doing what they should. Maybe I identified the wrong problem - obviously new people will mess up - so why are people just undoing their edits left and right instead of fixing them? I'm gracious that I had people like you SandyGeorgia and others come along after my new articles/edits to existing ones and "clean them up" or make them better - why are people undoing left and right and how do we stop that? There's some things that definitely need undone (ex: tons of biased crap I undid on Synanon recently) - but that doesn't mean that every "bad" edit the solution is undo. And if edits keep getting undone left and right, I'm not sure a welcome template is going to help at all...

I'm also not at all sure how to "report" these people for action - I know only some people like admins can block/ban/sanction people - but RexxS is the only one I've personally talked to to my knowledge and they have their hands full with COVID-19 and other topics it seems (in fact, I noticed they posted on the "admin noticeboard" about an editor who needed a topic ban from that topic - which I supported). Is the admin noticeboard the best place to take issues like this? The couple times I saw it happen I just wrote a (hopefully) nice note on the established user's talk page asking them to reconsider undoing and just fixing the problems instead - but I'm not actually sure if it worked or not. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:02, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I need to think on this, Berchan; I have checked your contribs; fortunately we are not talking about the same editor, and the instances that happened on my watchlist are much more serious than what you came across (and perhaps I never saw them until now because I only recently added back most medical FAs to my watchlist). I'd advise for now staying away from the drama boards (WP:AN and WP:ANI). I think you are on to something, though: no amount of template wording is going to help us gain and retain new editors when we find that even sourced edits are being rolled back as vandalism. It's quite dismaying, but more significantly, you understand that this is not the kind of editor you want to be :( Your nice note is most certainly the best way to start, as that editor will hopefully adjust; I'm afraid the case that hit my watchlist is more complicated than that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay. I will keep on keeping on for now and leave the two subpages I created as a "future" development. Unfortunately, as you may have seen, this week has been next to no time to contribute - in addition working on the Russian COVID-19 vaccine (which I personally have reserved hope for its success for the scientists, but complete anger towards the propaganda the politicians are playing on it), I've had next to no time to poke back to Circumcision and HIV (which I worked on and pinged the other primary editor for a second look) or my pet project of the medical injections... Unfortunately, two of my coworkers have recently had fathers pass away, one a world away in India, so I've been covering a lot of shifts for them so they can have the time they need.. and like I said, I'm not sure this welcome project is even "worth it" - the problem seems more to me to be with experienced editors and/or our ability to "catch them" and help them before they just sign off and leave. Also... the only way I know what kind of editor I want to be is because of people like you, WAID, RexxS, BlueRasberry, etc... so you deserve all the credit for that - not me :) Regards, -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry for your co-workers, and that you've had to work extra hard; real life seems to kick in just when you want to get something done on Wikipedia, no? Don't give up; you are on the right track, and have good ideas, but change comes slowly. Yes, I've seen indications of some very good IPs being chased off in one edit. There is more than one way to skin a cat, which is why I am trying to promote more retention through FA writing-- I am putting together a blurb for Tom (LT) for the anatomy project newsletter that will explain. Chip away where you can, and just keep being on the good team :0 Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:41, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughts, but don't be sorry I have to work extra hard - it comes with being in the field of medicine, and I'm happy to do it. Coincidentally enough, when I was about to hit the year mark, the same thing happened where my coworkers covered/took-over for me when I had to leave for a family emergency - so I'm more than happy to do it. I will stay on the good team if I can - and I trust people will "set me straight" if I'm not - but I plan to stick around haha -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

To do

1. Iri talk
2. Check back in on Discrete trial training
3. CC office
4. User:Eyoungstrom Finish VMI
5. User:WhatamIdoing Lead RFC
6. Article work:

   Morgagni hernia

   habit cough