User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch2

Edit Help

Hi Sandy, I'd love to help you edit the TS page. It will probably be a few weeks, however, as I'm currently working on the Parkinson's page. AFGriffithMD 18:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Internet phenomenon

Internet phenomenon is currently in a poor state, but I think it has the potential to be encyclopedic. I would agree with the lists being moved to the talk page and entries only being re-added to the article once third party sources referencing the phenomenon are found - for each and every entry. Sorry to soil your freshly archived talkpage :)--Commander Keane 23:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

Hey, thanks for the note on my talk page, sorry for not getting back sooner. Can you outline the remaining issues we need to cover. From my calculations we've covered four out of the five initial requests (clean up talk page, deal with Marinol, guidance with links, starting an account), not sure how I can further help.

I will of course continue to be available, but are there any other issues you feel are key to resolving this dispute? If you could mention them (either on my talk page or on the article talk page or the mediation page) - it may be that I've missed them on the mediation page. Thanks :) - FrancisTyers 09:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update. I thought you were going to go ahead on the links... Regarding the others, can you address specific concerns to the talk page? I know it can seem frustrating when the other side doesn't reply, but there is not really much else I can do. I suggest leaving the {{subst:anon}} template on any talk page. This is a shorthand way of asking someone to create an account - s/he probably just forgot to log in...

Regarding the pillars and the encyclopaedic tone, could you point to specific examples of unencyclopaedic writing or misunderstandings of the four pillars? Sorry to keep asking for clarification, but it really helps if we have something concrete to refer to :) - FrancisTyers 14:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that sounds like the best plan. I'll close the case for now, if you need further help in the future, just leave a note on my talk page, you don't need to go to the trouble of opening up a new case. I will also watch the article. - FrancisTyers 15:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Hi Sandy! Just saw your vote in that RFA thingy Avi put up. That was sweet of you, thanks. ;-) I've just told him I think I'll go up for it later, though. It was a very nice gesture by both of you, thank you very much. I say, I meant to tell you I'm more or less done with the PANDAS article I promised you. It's in my USB drive, however, which is not with me at the moment. (I tend to write offline and upload later). I'll ping you when it's all uploaded and stuff, ok? See ya! :-) ENCEPHALON 17:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you say 'vanity stuff', do you mean dubious external links? If so, don't worry about those; we can toss them out in the touch up stage. Don't worry (too much) about prose either; there are several professional editors around who can help with that at the appropriate time; your prose most certainly does not 'stink', anyway :-). One section that I wonder about in the article is Tourette syndrome#Sociological and cultural aspects. Article size and detail is an issue on WP, and one way we address that is through the use of what is known as Wikipedia:Summary style. I wonder if we'd eventually get a better product by keeping the "hardcore" medical stuff at the parent article and creating a new short article for that section. ENCEPHALON 21:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's the vanity stuff ... like the idea of a separate article, as it will be hard to delete. :-)) Sandy 22:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LoL. Why? Opposition from your pleasant TS co-editors? ;-) Well, in some cases we have tossed the things in their entirety (eg. pneumonia), when they contained little of encyclopedic merit. In this case I can see a semi-decent article on social aspects or pop-cultural portrayals of TS, so maybe a split wouldn't be a bad idea. ENCEPHALON 22:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But, what would we call the separate article so it wouldn't become "more of the same" (i,e.; rampant speculation, original research, vanity entries, non-notables, non-verifiable sources, and so on)? I guess you can tell I'm a believer in peer reviewed, and random, blinded, controlled results :-) I spelled out an entire paragraph on Mozart and Aykroyd, because Wikipedia had become the primary source fueling those rumors, without presenting any real facts. Sandy 22:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Speaking of timing, I've been working on who's who. I hope JFW won't be gone long. I'd rather undertake this project when s/he is around. Sandy 22:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you can tell I'm a believer in peer reviewed, and random, blinded, controlled results :-) I spelled out an entire paragraph on Mozart and Aykroyd, because Wikipedia had become the primary source fueling those rumors, without presenting any real facts LoL. My kind of editor ;-). Yes, I noticed that: it's the best part of the whole section; I was wondering if it might be possible to leave the Mozart bit in somehow. I daresay the title of the subarticle will not do much to dissuade, uhm, shall we say a less rigorous approach to encyclopedia writing—no matter what it is. The subarticle will need to be watched; but at least by slitting it away we can prevent it weakening a potential FA. Splitting makes sense anyway, per Wikipedia:Summary style; TS is a large enough subject that the main article oughtn't be bloated with reference to a distinctly separate issue. In the meantime, Sandy, don't worry about digging up stuff to support all that rambling about who played which TS patient in what TV show. Concentrate on what you'd like to do with the main body of the article. When MCOTW gets to TS we'll apply a sensible pair of editing shears to all the fluff and cart it away. ENCEPHALON 23:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC) PS. Dr. JF de Wolff is very male. And yes, he's indispensible—firm, sensible chap, isn't he? He's one of, if not the, "longest serving" Wikipedian doc; the medical articles here owe a great deal to him. ENCEPHALON 23:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can see which articles have his mark, and which don't :-) I encountered the Summary style in some other very long articles I'm dying to dig my teeth into. Which reminds me: do you know if I really have to go back to the home page, and register a second user name, to be able to switch language versions on WP and edit in another language ? I should put out a HelpMe question and see if I can bug Commander Keane for the 100th time LOL ! OK, I'll try to focus my efforts now. Sandy 23:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ah, ha ... answered my own question without bothering the Commander. This is dorky. Wikipedia:Multilingual coordination Each language Wikipedia currently has a separate set of user accounts. Legitimate sock puppetry. Sandy 23:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

—I was about to say. Incidentally, many users maintain the same username across the other projects (unless it has been taken by someone else). For example, the Encephalon on commons, meta, wiktionary and French Wikipedia is the same charming gent you've come to know on en.wiki ;-) He's not quite as active at these other places though. ENCEPHALON 23:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There go the socks ! By the way, there's a problem with my Mozart wording: No Tourette's syndrome expert, organization, psychiatrist or neurologist has published concurrence that there is credible evidence to conclude that Mozart had Tourette's. Just because I've never encountered any published concurrence (having read just about everything there is to read on TS) doesn't mean none exists. There is a slim (to none) chance that someone somewhere published something, and I just haven't encountered it. I don't know how to re-word that, but it's poor wording. This is an example of why I'm never happy with my writing: it's more than a problem with prose that doesn't soar. Sandy 00:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Tourette syndrome

You're bloody welcome! :)

By the way, it's an impressively detailed article; nice work!

Cheers, Cmdrjameson 23:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind comment-

It was my first edit anywhere, but I don't think it was reverted. I removed the word "penis" from a place it didn't seem to belong, and it's still not there. I hope I didn't do it wrong, but also I hope you don't think I was the original vandal. Anyway, thanks for being so welcoming. Maybe I will feel worthy of/ ready for some actual writing/editing someday. thanksHester13 08:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Hester! I'm looking forward to having some help! I'm new too, but let me know if I can be of any help. I left you a message on your talk page. Sandy 14:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tourettes

No problem :) - FrancisTyers 13:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Tourette's article

Hey, Sandy, thank you for the awesome rewrite to the Tourette's article. As a person with Tourette's, I refer people to that page a lot, and it was in such shabby shape a few months ago -- it's so nice to have it fresh and clean and filled with good sources. Thank you, so very much. Carrie 13:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Book plug?

Well talk pages are for developing the articles. Having said that, a little bit a chatter is ok. I think in this case it's rather harmless (as long as they aren't spamming the message all over the place trying to advertise).--Commander Keane 23:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible vandalism

Hi Sandy. I'm not sure about the the first case (that your reported on 7th April), the editor seems to do go work otherwise, so I think I'll leave that alone.

The second case, reported today (my time) is clear vandalism. User:70.156.178.129 appears to have stopped now, but the correct procedure is to warn them a couple of times on their talk page and then list them on WP:AIV so an admin can block them. These procedures are discussed at Wikipedia:Vandalism. There is not much point in me blocking the IP address now since it might have been assigned to a different person etc.--Commander Keane 09:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given the series of warning on their talk page and your concerns, I put a strong warning at User talk:Ghosts&empties. If the editor continues to be disruptive perhaps an indefinite ban would be in order.--Commander Keane 14:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell if that edit is vandalism. Hopefully, even if you didn't review the entire contributions history, the mistakes will be corrected eventually. You are not obligated at all to go through all the contribs.--Commander Keane 14:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The two edits you presented appear to have been made in good faith. I'm not sure that there is anything I should do. The editor appears a little bizarre, but that is all.--Commander Keane 00:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel Marksman's Suggestive List

For the Tourette syndrome page.

I first wanted to point out the separation between tic and Tourette syndrome pages.

The way most other pages do it is with a very brief description over the certain topic, and post the main article "here". So, "Treatment of Tics" would have a sentence or two of mention, and a reference to the tic page that would actually hold the section.
Here is a crude example of that "other" page I was asking about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ColonelMarksman/TS_and_other_Tic_disorders Here is a list of information suggested to be moved around:

Instead of a long description of tics themselves here, add sections to the "tic" article describing them. In this article, it would be a brief overview description in the description section (1-3 sentences) with a link to the "tic" page for more information.
"Differential Diagnosis" Keep first sentence and leave a link to "TS and other disorders" basically stating that "Tourette syndrome is confused with other disorders listed here: ....(page-so-and-so)
We have "Treatment of Tics"... but this needs re-writing, e.g. "Treament of Tourette syndrome." With another link to the tic page where necessary.

If the two are considerably interlocked, leave a link to the tic page.

These above suggestions would clear away any repition on it's own (which is hard to specifically point out).

Colonel Marksman 17:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Colonel. I confess that I'm becoming confused about what you're suggesting -- your sample page is about TS and tic disorders, but there is already a page for Tic disorders -- I'm not sure why we'd add another page about tics and TS, when we already have Tic, Tic disorder and Tourette syndrome, which explains the differences. A lot of what you're suggesting is covered in the tic disorder page. I guess I'm missing the point you want to make ??

I'm also confused about why we'd move treatment out of the TS article, since most people with transient or chronic tics don't seek treatment, and when treatment is needed, it's usually for TS?

I do like the idea of moving more of the tic info to the tic entry. And, think the major shortening of the article could be done via the vanity entries and experimental treatments, as well as moving some of the tic info out. Sandy 19:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel, I requested the input from a Wiki Physician, before operating on the article extensively. Encephalon has been helpful to me several times in the past. Here, you can view his comments. Sandy 00:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tourettes Guy AfD added again

Hi, Sandy. I don't know that I agree with your decision to remove my edit to Tourette Syndrome, but I won't argue with it. But I don't see the need to remove the link to the "Tourettes Guy" article from the Coprolalia article. For one thing, I did not link the Tourette Guy site, but to the Tourettes Guy wikipedia article. Secondly, it is very common to cross-link to pop culture in Wikipedia. The Bionics article links to the "Six Million Dollar Man" article, the Great White Shark article links to the Jaws film article. There are countless such examples.

Hi TPellman. (Please sign your talk entries with four tildes.) I will respond on your talk page. Sandy 22:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good Faith

After rereading your comments about the Tourette's Guy article, I skimmed through the talk page on Tourette Syndrome, and it seems that your policy of removing everything that you don't agree with is not just confined to one instance. You have still not refuted my point that Tourette's Guy is indeed a notable site, with three quarters of a million hits per day. I think you may want to more carefully examine your editing policies. David Duchovny 07:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, David. The Tourettes Guy site has been voted an AfD twice. It's not up to any one editor to decide what is notable or not: it is based on a community vote. You seem very interested in that site: are you the owner? Thanks for the note. Sandy 10:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The community vote that you pointed out to me did not include anyone referencing any hard facts about the site's popularity. I have brought these to the table, which is why the discussion should be reopened. While I respect your views, I find it impossible to believe that, if the site's actual statistics (not the false number of Google hits that someone used on the discussion page) were pointed out to an impartial panel of editors here, that the end result of the discussion would be the same. And no, I am not the owner of the site. I am just a fan. David Duchovny 21:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David, I am sorry this is troubling you so much, but I am just another editor, like yourself, and it is not in my power to affect an AfD. I don't know where to advise you to take your question, as I don't know Wiki ins and outs that well myself. (Perhaps the speedy deletion discussion would be the place for you to raise these issues? I really don't know.) I am curious about why the site is so important to you. Your history shows you've edited six main pages in your month or so on Wiki: maybe you could spend some time getting to understand Wikipedia better? I always love to see new baseball entries, even if they are for the National League :-) I hope you'll focus on making great additions and edits, rather than expending so much energy on a site that has already been voted AfD twice. I wish I could tell you where to address your concerns, but I just don't know, other than going back to the speedy delete page. Best regards, Sandy 23:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Thanks

Because you have so many references on the Tourette's syndrome page, I was able to use the example in the editing to figure out how to cite references. Just an indirect thanks of "doing it right". :-) Colonel Marksman 15:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Venezuela

Hello there, I joined the project but I'm not very familiar with Wikipedia and how the project works and stuff, I'd love to keep contributing to Venezuela's articles and I'll start improving them. Let me know if I can be of some help with your interest in Venezuela :) DamianFinol 18:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turret entry

Hi, see my answer: user talk:fabartus#Turret_entry. Thanks! FrankB 22:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on Saravask's RfA

Hi Sandy - I commend your being frank about your views and putting much good thought into the issues of Saravask's RfA. Being perfectly honest, at the time I felt that Saravask was really not obligated to respond to you, as you had straight-out voted "oppose." It was not like you had voted neutral with a question/concern, or made a comment beforehand. If you wanted answers, you at least should not have jumped into the oppose column. I feel that you were not respecting others - it sounded like you were rejecting the peer reviews and FACs that the Chavez articles, as if the consensus was meaningless. It was also incorrect for you to assume that Saravask is inherently responsible for the upkeep of the Chavez articles and thus fighting POV edits. Its a common responsibility. You should not have asked him to do something like withdraw the nomination. As much as your points were good, you cannot so disrespect the beliefs of 62 other people who placed their faith in Saravask. Even as Wikipedia is not a democracy, Saravask has a good consensus of support and it doesn't sit well in my mind that you assert that it is necessary for him to reject that. Being made administrator unopposed is no special honor IMO - perhaps it means one has never been honest enough about oneself - and criticism must remain in its rightful place. I know your intentions were proper, but the implications you made were not. Please give this some thought. Rama's Arrow 03:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Saravask's RfA here for the record. Thank you for the comments, Rama's Arrow. The POV articles, upon which his RfA was partly based, were not the only reason for my early oppose: several other concerns were posted and discussed early on. His response to the POV issue, failure to establish notability in a bio, the limited number of articles edited, and concerns about his argumentative nature might have convinced me he would be ready at some point in the future. I did not assume Saravask was responsible for the POV or the upkeep of the articles: I specifically asked him to address his role in and view of the POV, and he only partially responded, with considerable delay. NPOV is the pillar upon which Wiki is based, and admins (or postulates) should respond quickly and stridently in support of NPOV, or even the mere suggestion of POV. Since Saravask reverted his comments here, I will respect his silence, but I don't find it in good faith to revisit this topic after the RfA has closed, particularly when the issue wasn't adequately addressed during the RfA or by Saravask himself. I congratulate Saravask on his RfA, and hope that this discussion has served some purpose in highlighting a problem. Democracy is always an imperfect process, but it still beats the alternative. Sandy 04:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm....not to point too fine a point on it, but you voted "oppose" with a simple statement which never sounded like a question, and later added comment and "Strong oppose," asserting that Saravask should have replied. The reason I raised this issue now was becoz I wanted to make my concern clear about what I consider your improper assertions. What harm is there in being able to discuss delicate stuff with a frank but positive attitude? Consider it bad faith if you like, but I've made my opinions clear in the regard. Cheers, Rama's Arrow 23:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for missing Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rama's_Arrow. Sandy 02:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Thanks for the peer review input on TS !

Hi! In fact, the article is so large and detailed, I bet laymen would be soon disintersted to read it thouroughly. Only those who are intersted in the topic will read probably. IMO daughter articles need to be created on, say, description, and prognosis. I will let you know further points if I get the time to review the article thoroughly! Bye.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I have made some comments in the peer review page. Please see. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mob wars

Who knew that Lucky Luciano was known primarily as a national hero and that claims that he was a mobster are unproven? Revisionist history or Wikipedia? What's the difference. I was reverting it back to the version from April 27. But I'll let it stand. Let's reconcile.Ghosts&empties 20:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFA#BrownHairedGirl

Hi Sandy, thanks for taking the time to vote on my RFA. I have learnt a lot from everyone's comments, particularly those who voted to oppose my self-nomination — the feedback has all been very constructive and useful. --BrownHairedGirl 10:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tourette:further

Hi! I have added the eMedicine and OMIM id to the disease infobox. Sorry I cannot furnish you with any example, that is example of another medical article which has those links. I have not really seen these stuffs anywhere else. However, I have seen eMedicine and OMIM info on other articles like Acrodermatitis enteropathica. No idea about MedlinePlus and DiseasesDB links. See those sites if you can find out anything helpful.

The article is nice now. However, it would be nicer if you can summarise the paragraphs where association of TS with OCD and ADHD are discussed.

A request: Please start with a new heading in case you give me a message. I often miss the older heading of conversations, I am really sorry. Hope you won't mind. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have changed the eMedicine entry.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, you have changed the infobox excellently. It looks nice. Just a question. Which article did you find that contained this detailed use of the disaese infobox?--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I found one. Crigler-Najjar syndrome. --Dwaipayan (talk) 05:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have summarised "Causes and origins: genetic and epigenetic factors" and added a link to the new daughter article Causes and origins of Tourette syndrome. Please see if you like the changes. Please do not get annoyed if I have inadvertantly removed some important stuff from the main article. It would be great if the article comes to less than 35 kb. People have a tendency to skip portions in big articles. "Prognosis" may also be slightly summarised, I feel. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice! I made some minor changes, and removed a bit more from the TS article to the daughter article. I added your sample to Template_talk:Infobox_Disease, as I found the article hard to follow. I can continue to summarize further, but have house guests which are taking my entire day: will get to it later tonight. Thanks! Sandy 11:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Hi SandyGeorgia/arch2,

Thank you for any constructive criticism you may have given in my recent unsuccesful RFA. I will strive to overcome any shortcomings you may have mentioned & will try & prove myself worthy of your vote in the future.

Cheers

Srik e it^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 10:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glacier National Park (US)

Myself and others have made some improvements to the article, and I tried to rewrite the intro to make it less wordy and more inviting...if you care to have a look at your convienence...thanks for your comments.--MONGO 06:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Highway's RfA

File:Pikachu plastic toy.JPG

Me relaxing...

Request for Adminship

Thank you for supporting/objecting/tropicanising me in my request for Adminship. Although I wasn't promoted to admin status, with a final vote count of 14/27/12, I am very happy with the response I received from my fellow Wikipedians. I was pleasantly suprised at the support, and was touched by it. I will also work harder on preventing disputes and boosting my edit count (which is on the up), so thank you to all your objectors. Hopefully I will re-apply soon and try again for the mop. Thanks again, H ig hway ^{Rainbow Sneakers}

Welcome template

Hi Sandy. How's everything? Isn't that template great? It's {{welcomeg}}, and yes it's generally available for use. I like it much better than the other welcome templates. When using it, pipe your signature using tildes after the name (and of course always substitute), like this {{subst:welcomeg|~~~~}} :-)--Fuhghettaboutit 12:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sukh's RFA - Thanks!

Thank you for your vote on my RfA. Unfortunately there was no consensus reached at 43 support, 18 oppose and 8 neutral. I've just found out that there is a feature in "my preferences" that forces me to use edit summaries. I've now got it enabled :) Thanks again. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 15:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bugging you again

Sorry to bug you again, but many changes have been done on the Glacier National Park (US) article and I was wondering if you have anymore suggestions...maybe it'll get you away from the Hugo Chavez stuff for a bit...I know articles such as that one can be difficult to maintain.--MONGO 07:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...I trimmed out the information load as you ahd mentioned before on the comments page. Thanks again for your assistance.--MONGO 03:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again...I think I will do some more copyediting later as I keep seeing the redundant phrase "in the park" a few times too often. Happy editing.--MONGO 04:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mission Florentino(Comando Maisanta)

Hola Sandy! thank you for the message and your edits. I felt I had to create a new page that hopefully will explain the Comando Maisanta /Mission Florentino better than just a few words. Also I took the decision because, somehow, it was not included among the bolivarian missions. I'll also add a few sentences to Súmate about Luis Tascón and keep on working on the Mission Florentino. Please feel free to visit the pages and edit them to make them easier to read. (09:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)) Caracas1830

Merci beaucoup!

Thank you,SandyGeorgia/arch2!
Thank you for voting for my recent RfA, which passed (to my extreme surprise and shock) with a total tally of 66/15/2. Although you didn't give me a support vote, I would nevertheless like to thank you for your helpful comments and offer a helping hand in any admin-related tasks that may be required -- it's as simple as leaving a message on my talkpage. Thanks again! -→Buchanan-Hermit ™/!? 22:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]