User talk:SandyGeorgia

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
About meTalk to meTo do listTools and other
useful things
Some of
my work
Nice
things
Yukky
things
Archives


I lose track of those pingie-thingies; because I don't get along with them, I have converted all notifications to email only. A post here on my talk page is the best way to get my attention. Please provide a link to the article you want me to look at.
iPad typing: I am unable to sit at a real computer with a keyboard for extended periods of time because of a back injury. When I am typing from my iPad, my posts are brief and full of typos. Please be patient; I will come back later to correct the typos :) I'm all thumbs, and sometimes the blooming iPad just won't let me backspace to correct a typo.


On calling it like you see it

Hi Sandy, just a note (without commenting on others feelings), that you telling my way back when that one of my articles "needed serious literary intervention" was something I needed to hear and probably the most useful feedback I have gotten here. Thanks for not being afraid to speak your mind. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:40, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to separate the lamb from the sheep, and reveal the pure-hearted and worthy of keeping as friends; I enjoy your articles, and glad my non-invective was of some service. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FAC history and culture

Posting here to encourage discussion on a safe page; I am contemplating whether to work this in to an Essay page, or accept the inevitable decline. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At FAC, the objection to "Done" tick marks came before the transclusion limits problem impacting FAC archive pages was discovered. On the template limits problem, when I was doing a month-end tally, I couldn't figure out why the total nominations listed in a file were off, until I realized the last FACs on the archive pages were dropping off, so the number of FACs promoted and archived didn't match what showed on the page. After I went through and deleted some of the tick marks, they dropped nominations re-appeared.

But before that, there was a problem with the "done" tickmarks, because they rendered the pages a) too long, and b) meaningless and jumbled for me (the only closer at the time) in terms of knowing what was actually done. For a nominator to take space on a FAC page to state that something is done isn't helpful; it's not "done" until the reviewer indicates they are satisfied. And back then, the way a reviewer indicated "done" was by striking the objection. So we were getting unhelpful and unnecessary "done" tickmarks, followed by reviewers striking, resulting in lengthy FACs and impossible-to-read jumbles. That's the background on the tickmarks.

The entirely separate, and cultural, issue leading to impossible-to-sort FACs also has several different components (and I suspect that Mike Christie and I define "regulars" on the page differently, as my list includes those who have been so alienated they won't return until the problems are addressed, and most of these problems are unknown to newer "regulars", who know nothing else but the system now on the page).

One component is that new participants, when first approaching FAC, wlll today find an over-complicated, indecipherable and at times unloadable page, and be put off. Reviews have declined; the off-puttting page doesn't help. Compare any FAC page today with, for example, a page at AFD, DYK, GAN-- any other forum-- and it becomes clearer why editors may avoid engaging. Page functioning and instructions are unclear, and the entry barrier is high. So a walled garden effect predominates, and those who have the long-standing presence or prominence in the process to attract their own reviewers are happy with the system because their articles are getting promoted, while overall the page is stalled and clogged. Current "regulars" have no reason to object to this dysfunction, because they are getting their bronze stars. So we are left with a self-perpetuating dysfunctional process, in decline. As one indication of the content areas in decline, the (FAC stats tool, Long and short FACs, sort by supports) shows that three biomedical FACs historically had the most and fastest unopposed support (Tim Vickers and SandyGeorgia, see Tourette syndrome, DNA, Bacteria, and by the way, the top support count at Samuel Johnson). In my last medical FAC, I had to bring my own reviewers. Never mind that I spent years selflessly reviewing the most boring MilHist, ship, hurricane, pop culture, or any other kind of article possible; a MilHist regular declined to review a medical article because it was outside of their area. A medical article today can't buy a review. And yet, there was resistance when I suggested the process has become too MilHist oriented, and that once thriving areas of FA growth have gone completely missing.

Another cultural issue is the old mantra that "FAC is not peer review", has been replaced by the new culture, where FAC most clearly is functioning as peer review (to the detriment of the actual Peer review process, as "old-timers" used to go there, and they no longer do, as PR has moved to FAC). The FAC pages were simpler in the past (see my previous point) because you either Supported, Opposed, or entered limited commentary. If you had to engage the extended PR that is now happening on FAC, the convention instead was that you gave only a few examples of the deficiencies, suggested what was needed (a copyedit, better sourcing, whatever), and Opposed. Under that scheme, the process worked MUCH faster than it does today, as sub-standard FACs were moved quickly off the page (under two weeks was my goal), which allowed them to return faster and be promoted quicker than today. You can poke around in the FAC stats tool (eg, year summaries, average durations) that Mike developed (I believe partly in response to my long-standing concerns in this area), and you can see the evidence for these concerning trends. (I used to be attacked for "no evidence" for these statements I knew very well to be true, having read FAC top-to-bottom near daily for seven years-- Mike's stats show them clearly.) For ten years, we've had longer (but not necessarily better) FACs, of longer duration, with a higher promotion rate (ie, more sub-standard promotions being pulled through by brute force). "Old-timers" aren't going to engage a page where they are forced to return over and over again to address comments on sub-standard article nominations that should be archived with content re-worked via the peer review process.

An entirely separate cultural matter is the leadership role, somewhat related to institutional memory (moi). The archiveN issue has surfaced several times over the years (mostly at FAR), and needed to be addressed. I am perhaps the only institutional memory who could have answered those questions, and the discussion needed to happen at FAC (rather than on a subpage) precisely for the reasons of institutional memory (keep it in FAC archives-- I'm not getting any younger, and that institutional memory needs to be preserved). Unfortunately, that long discussion happened to coincide with several others, and 60% of my posts over four days were dealing with deferred housekeeping, including discovering that no one was watching the page archivals and important threads had even disappeared from the archive search tool. Perhaps in hindsight, we might have moved that discussion to a subpage, but there's already a problem of institutional memory, so it's just unfortunate that Mathglot's query contributed to a perfect storm of page overload. (One of the Coord roles is to keep an eye on overall page functioning, and if that is done, we wouldn't have to overwork to catch up on problems.)

And then another cultural issue is that many "old-timers" did not pick and choose which FAC to review based on their personal topic preferences; they chose based on a desire to preserve the overall status of the bronze star overall (many also active at WP:FAR, doing selfless work, rather than reward-culture seeking via new personal stars at FAC only). To best help the process overall, they engaged the entire FAC page; they/we have no interest in viewing the page via a nomination viewer, whereby they can pick one FAC to review. They/we WANT to be able to read the entire page, see trends, spot problems, decide then where their engagement is most needed.

So, all of that combines to show how the dysfunction has accumulated towards the overall decline in the FA process, which has real consequences-- what brought me back temporarily to the page. We have excellent editors and reviewers, like Vaticidalprophet, caught in this "cultural war" and completely unaware of what other-functioning of FAC looked like. Vaticidalprophet says here, that they'd likely have no FACs if we went back to more expedient archivals. That they would have more FAs, better review, and quicker FAs if the page were functioning properly is something completely unknown to newer participants, as they have no experience of the page as it was before, with more engaged reviewers, and quicker turnaround.

The number of FAs has now declined to the point that FAC can't feed the needs of TFA, so saving older stars via FAR and URFA/2020 has had to fill the gap. Re-runs at TFA were once extremely rare; now they are essential, as there aren't regularly enough FAs to feed 365 annual TFAs without them. The overall process is failing, but the "currents" are happy as they are getting their stars, and critics are shunned.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:03, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will say that outside of PMC, who I review because I know her work is high-quality and fashion is an underrepresented topic, I do source reviews at whichever article seems interesting to me. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed (Ealdgyth and I thank you :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:55, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile, I tend to review whatever shows up in the box above the talk page at a moment where I have plenty of free time. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:25, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At FAR, I am far more likely to invest time in saving an article about a topic I have familiarity with and offline sources about. I was hoping to save Pioneer Zephyr but ran into another editor actively obstructing my improvements to the point I gave up and allowed the article to be delisted. I think this is a problem across FAR - you or I can fix weak prose on any topic assuming we have the sources, but when you need really niche in-depth (and usually offline) sourcing about something obscure, it's a significant challenge. I had enough offline sources I might have been able to make that save work, that is, before I got so frustrated I walked away. Two of my FAs are heavily reliant on offline sources, so in a hypothetical scenario where Providence and Worcester Railroad ended up at FAR and I wasn't around for whatever reason, someone trying to save the article at FAR would be working with one hand behind their back if they didn't have access to the offline-only Edward A. Lewis and Ronald Dale Karr books heavily used for sources, or the Trains Magazine articles. You could apply this to many topic areas. If you asked me to do an FAR at Autism, I would hardly know where to start when it comes to sources. If you asked me to help at say an FAR of a British admiral from the 1700s, I'd be nearly useless because I wouldn't have access to the required sources.
Outside of the dedicated community at MILHIST and a few similar isolated examples, there's not really much of a sense of community in many topic areas; with one exception, nobody else at WP:TRAINS was interested in any of my FACs. Just as Sandy mentions needing to actively recruit reviewers, I have experienced the same necessity to avoid nominations being archived, not because anyone has opposed, but simply because of too few reviewers. Quite frankly, I don't know if I would have been able to get any FACs passed if Guerillero hadn't taken the time to provide a source review on my first nomination, where I was able to learn from my mistakes and come back a second time with an article that sailed through FAC smoothly.
I can't speak to if it has always been this way, but at least in my time here FAC has been an extremely time-consuming process; each FA I have represents dozens of hours of research, writing, and proofreading, and that's before responding to concerns raised by reviewers. Then, I typically spend several months at FAC before attracting enough reviewers to get a promotion. I don't have that level of time available to me anymore (and have lost a lot of interest in editing lately), and so I have stopped participating at FAC for the time being. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:17, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am noting I've seen this and will try to organize my thoughts in the next few days. Bear in mind I no longer have the time for wiki I once did - or rather, I use the time I once spent on wiki on other more productive pastimes. I miss the community and the research but... with more limited time, I have to prioritize on what makes me happy and/or makes me money. Ealdgyth (talk) 23:48, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ealdgyth, I'd be most interested, when you have time, on hearing of any important items related to functioning of the process overall that I may have left out. There's so much more, but I wanted to get a start ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:53, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One thing that has come up, which I didn't want (yet) to get into, is the relative recent absence of a female presence, compared to the last decade when the very frequent regulars and delegates and reviewers besides me were Karanacs, Dana boomer, Maralia, Nikkimaria, Ealdgyth, Awadewit, Slim Virgin, Moni3, TK ... ok, who'd I leave out ... Raul was certainly a supporter of the women in the process. What became of the gender diversity, along with the topic diversity ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am disappointed at our difficulty in recruiting a more balanced editor population, and I wish I had the answers. I have tried to encourage women I know irl to try editing but have had no success. Annie's work with Depths of Wikipedia gives me some hope, however. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is such a strange thing for FAC old-timers, as there was no doubt that women kept FAC going for years :) For years, I scoffed at the gender idea, thinking others just didn't realize how many we were. Lately, I'm not so sure, but then lately, my bigger concern is the lack of Spanish speakers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is an interesting perspective. It hadn't occurred to me, but it makes sense when you put it like this. I don't have the depth of knowledge on FA that other commenters do, but I would be interested if you did a more detailed write-up of the issues. It sounds like they are a mix of technical and cultural issues? I've found that documenting and suggesting small ways to get started in a process helps with recruitment and retention. That essay is geared towards academics, but some of these ideas have been added to the growth team extension for new users. This is to say: if you have ideas for how to address the problem, I think it would be good to put them down in a central place (or maybe you do and I'm just underinformed) so that others can point to it in the next brainstorming session or as part of training. An essay laying out the problem to be solved is a good place for that! Even if you decide against writing more on this, thanks for the interesting read and new perspective. Wug·a·po·des 07:53, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wugapodes; thanks for the feedback and thoughts, but mostly for taking the time to give encouragement. I've had a tough year with my husband's health, and encouragement to bring me back to a happy, optimistic place is appreciated.
Yes, I have tried writing up my thoughts. And tried. And tried.
  1. I wrote User:SandyGeorgia/Achieving excellence through featured content; it was intended to mostly encourage medical writers to come back, but the advice at the bottom applies to all. And to put my money where my mouth is, I spent months getting {{FAC peer review sidebar}} up and running, and responded to every PR there. I gave up; it was making no difference in the FAC problem.
  2. Z1720, Buidhe, Hog Farm and I pushed forward Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-01-30/WikiProject report; this was intended to help engage more people in the FA process and remind that the value of the FA star is only as good as the entire pool. FAR operates at a deliberatively slower pace than FAC, and the stakes aren't as high in terms of criticism offending a nominator; we hoped to bring in more people via the backdoor and reinstate the collaboration that once existed across all FA process pages.
  3. User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox4 was my attempt to help make the FAC page move faster; it was ignored (well, that's a mild description of how process change proposals are received at WT:FAC). If people didn't know a time when the process functioned better, they can't appreciate the need to try something new. The FAR page functions smoothly as a deliberative two-phase process; an article doesn't move to the second phase until conditions have been met in the first; the proposal was to move FAC similarly to a two-phase process, where an article doesn't advance until sourcing and copyright status have been vetted, thereby conserving FAC resources devoted to copyedit and other matters until the basics are in place.
  4. I floated User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox11 up to all the FA process Coords, hoping to encourage more diversity and transparency in the Coord selection process; it received less than tepid response. There's no motivation for process change.
I think I've run out of instruments in the box of tools for trying to reinvigorate the process and get it back on track. When the regulars are regularly getting their stars, there's no reason for them to listen or care. And it was that AN thread that you read that prompted me into my last foray into FAC. It's disconcerting that canvassing is no longer canvassing; coordinated editing is no longer a thing; those with a certain POV or personal preference can impose them even upon Featured articles via methods that once would have been shut down as canvassing or coordinated editing, all while the FA process regulars are ensconced in their walled garden, not even realizing that no one cares about their bronze stars anymore.
What was once a beacon towards best practice, exemplifying Wikipedia at its finest, has become a closed, little known or visited corner of Wikipedia where few dare to or care to enter. And if one tries to communicate these issues, the latest trend is to shut down critique via the all-the-latest-rage charge of bludgeoning. S Marshall's response to that charge was one of the best things I've read all year, so at least there's some good news in the overall bleak picture. With increasing needs to focus on health issues at home, I find retirement more and more appealing. I don't know if I have any ummmmph left in me, and find my disappointment coming through in the tone of my posts, so it's probably approaching time for me to move along. Seeing that canvassing is no longer canvassing has made me realize that my views on Wikipedia are probably dated. I appreciate your thorough read and attention to my thoughts. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:48, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever happened with the proposal at sandbox4? (rhetorical, I know it was never acted upon). I would have been then and am now in favor of trialing something like that. I've had several instances where I do a first time nom spotcheck after the article has a number of supports on prose, and end up checking the whole article, because it's already gone so far in the process. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also think that something along the lines of sandbox11 would more likely than not be approved if put to the community as an rfc. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:17, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
<sigh> ... two valid options I've sandboxed, waiting for the community to work up together a fresh look at FAC functioning ... but now we've got another premature RFC, with vague and piecemeal solutions to long-festering problems. The retire button beckons; I don't know if I have this in me anymore. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, thanks for those kind words!
    As far as I can recall, in my seventeen years and a little change as a Wikipedian, I've interacted with FAC on one (1) single solitary occasion. So basically I know nothing about FAC at all, but let me take you through my experience, because it was pretty troubling.
    On 23rd March 2020, I closed this RfC. It contained credible allegations that Renamed user df576567etesddf, formerly Cliftonian, had submitted Ian Smith to FAC, and that it had passed despite being a whitewash and an NPOV failure. Ian Smith was subsequently delisted at FAR, and then a bunch of Cliftonian's other FAs were also delisted, in my view rightly.
    On the basis of this experience, I've come to think that there's nothing preventing articles that fail core content policies from getting promoted to FA. Is that so?—S Marshall T/C 15:36, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If reviewers don't notice or don't care about the POV, that is. Now my articles (volcanoes, mainly) don't get many questions about NPOV and due weight; whether this reflects the topic or is a problem I'll leave to others to comment on. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. It has always happened (I've got some bad passes from my tenure, eg ANAK Society), but now it's more likely than ever, because those who understand and acknowledge the problems have given up (or died) or completely left the page in disgust, and criticism is stifled by those who are happy with the status quo. The bronze star has lost all meaning, and in my FAC history and culture draft, I've barely scratched the surface of why that has happened. I dare not press too far, as simply stated, no one wants to hear how pervasive the problems are. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ... right. I'm now trying to think of a proposed solution that isn't extremely drastic and drama-genic.—S Marshall T/C 15:57, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think there is one. I think the inevitable is now ... inevitable. Continued decline into obsolescence. Hopefully I'll be dead or demented by the time it reaches that, so I won't have to see the end. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yannow, I am not sure that folks no longer care about POV issues in FAC. I note the discussion in the Philosophy FA about how much due weight to assign to certain aspects, for example. On the other side, a number of POV FAs like Ian Smith and Barack Obama were delisted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Misti isn't quite ready for FAC but when it goes, it might become a case study on source reviewing - there are a few sources that IMO are justifiable but an eagle-eyed source reviewer would remark upon. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:27, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    PS, I'm hounded out of the room every time I raise concerns at FAC that there are editors who have strings of FAs that aren't. If I raise that problem, "evidence" is demanded, which would mean pointing fingers at certain editors with deficient sourcing, or deficient prose, or getting their FACs promoted on regular support from their Wikifriends, and so on. I've occasionally tackled a situation where the evidence is obvious (Socrates Nelson, John Wick), but it's dangerous territory, and concerns fall on deaf ears. Simply because those who are getting their stars want to continue getting them, and concern for overall functioning of the process has been lost since the process was split into three separate kingdoms. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I am contemplating whether to work this in to an Essay page, or accept the inevitable decline.

    We preserve thought and knowledge by distilling them into essays. If you choose not to write the essay, nobody will criticise you for deciding not to, but then all this thought and knowledge you have are tears in rain. If you do choose to write it, then a non-zero possibility of change exists.—S Marshall T/C 16:19, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I seriously don't think I have anything left to give. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've thought about this all week, and I think it's all come down to ... too much time and effort is spent dealing with prose and not enough on the actual content. The fact that sourcing isn't dealt with by most of the reviewers at FAC is just one symptom of the problem. And I've come to the conclusion that the source reviews I used to do ... contributed to the current problem. When I used to do source reviews, I had the luxury of doing them early in the reviews, so other reviewers got used to not having to engage with the sourcing (and by extension the actual content of the article) because I was there and dealt with it. But when my life changed with mom's increasing dementia and then her death-combined-with-move ... reviewers kept on not-engaging-with-the-sourcing-and-content even though the source reviews now tended to come later and later in the process. So many reviewers got into the habit of not thinking about anything but the styling of the prose that they can't imagine that they need to engage with the content/sourcing/NPOV/etc. So now we get reviews that never really engage with the content itself but just polish the prose... which leads to more reviews that are really just examples of copyediting the article to make it look like the particular pet-writing-style of the reviewers and isn't really making the content better. Looking through the current candidates, I see many examples of very nitpicky changes to wording that are pure style and not necessarily any improvement to the text of the article. This has led to folks outside the FAC bubble considering FAC to be just a bunch of folks who polish words without actually worrying about the actual content of an article. It's always had that reputation.
The couple of times I've tried to reengage with FAC it's been an uphill battle to get folks to even see that sourcing and content are important. It wasn't a "fun" process for me, and frankly, my energies for wikipedia didn't need it. Once I thought it was worthwhile to have a process like FAC, but frankly, lately, I've not missed it.
To some degree, this is a problem with much of wikipedia, and it derives from the very thing that makes wikipedia strong - the decentralized nature of its processes. It's hard to get a process that enforces standards when there is no "authority" to make those standards in the first place. Although I'm not impressed with FAC recently, I remain positive about wikipedia as a whole. I just don't have the time to engage in a fight with a windmill right now and am not sure I ever will again. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:25, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes to all, but ... If you look at the issues at the AN that led to my recent foray back into FAC, and combine those with the tendentious editing I'm dealing with elsewhere, the whole outlook is not promising. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WBFAN

  • This is the ongoing problem of people racing each other on Wikipedia.
    Consider Lugnuts, who is Wikipedia's most prolific article-starter ever, and now site-banned by Arbcom following this Arbcom case. Lugnuts started 94,367 articles.
    His method was to visit databases about sportspeople, such as olympedia.com; find someone without an article; cut and paste the database information into a standard article template; publish it; and then do it again. During his sprees he often created articles at the rate of one a minute. Lugnuts had the autopatrolled user-right, so we've still got nearly 90,000 "articles" that are (a) biographies and often BLPs, (b) not watchlisted by anyone, and (c) of immensely low quality. The cleanup operation is positively Augean and there's significant opposition to the idea of mass-draftifying them.
    I can see a clear parallel with WP:WBFAN. People are racing. But I want to draw your attention to the discussions at WP:LUGSTUBS and WP:LUGSTUBS2 in which the community does get behind drastic and drama-genic ideas to solve the problem.
    Wikipedians are often skeptical, critical thinkers who have the encyclopaedia's best interests at heart. Those discussions are painful, bruising experiences full of accusations of bad faith -- but they succeeded. And I think it's entirely possible that your proposals might go the same way.—S Marshall T/C 16:39, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes (it's what some call the reward culture). We once could proudly say that WBFAN wasn't like DYK, or WikiCup, or any other place that rewarded bling over quality. No longer true by a long stretch. To such an extent that I'm unsure why I am still working at WP:FAR and WP:URFA/2020; why are we delisting older FAs that are often still closer to fulfilling WP:WIAFA than some of the newer ones are? What game are we playing here? Part of my FAC resignation (besides my promise to Colin years before to return to medical editing) was that I was sick and tired of "working" up to eight hours daily to feed prima donna egos, and realizing that those who gave back were few and far between; has that changed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To be blunt, the answer to "has that changed?" is no. Ealdgyth (talk) 17:21, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it has changed; for the worse. There's only one Nikkimaria. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ealdgyth, on the bling/reward culture, I was just over at User talk:Nikkimaria on another matter, and noticed another factor that has long troubled me. It started when I noticed that Gimmetrow was never thanked for his selfless technical work to keep the processes going, continued when I noticed you were rarely thanked for source reviews, and now I see the same with Nikkimaria. It's as if it never even occurs to the star collectors that there are people devoting hours to making those stars happen, and yet the thanks are few and far between. The real work is taken for granted, while FAC pages are filled with prose-light commentary that is more apt for talk pages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:45, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    S Marshall I went back and looked at your Lugstubs links, and yes, when you give them something concrete (like I gave them WP:DCGAR) people get behind cleanup. I spent a good chunk of this year on DCGAR, and am grateful for the community effort, but it was demoralizing work (when you factor in that it included copyvio, non-notability, text-to-source integrity, and GA process failures, and all those problems had gone on for years). I have no reason to think such an effort will yield anything wrt FAC (other than the bit we're already doing at URFA, knowing that there are hundreds to thousands more down the line). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
I found the time to read through your comments at the close review at AN and wanted to thank you for stepping in. Managing conflicts can be hard: looking at the context of the dispute, identifying issues, and raising them politely but firmly with colleagues is not easy work, so it's nice when people step up to ensure a healthy community. Thanks for setting a good example! Wug·a·po·des 07:37, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you,

The Special Barnstar


Thank you for all you have done.


--Dustfreeworld (talk) 03:38, 19 November 2023 (UTC)                                                                                                                                                        [reply]

Especially for your first-rate work at WP:FAR and WP:MED :) --Dustfreeworld (talk) 06:35, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Dustfreeworld most kind of you! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:12, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to see you are still going strong, and remain focussed on what matters: improving articles! Geometry guy 22:39, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Geometry guy what a real pleasure to see you! It's such a different place here now, in so many ways; I often wonder how your absence affected the trajectory of top content work on Wikipedia, and whether the decline we see today would have happened if we had maintained the consistent shepherding evidenced in your work. In other words ... miss you, hope you are well, and it's bittersweet to see you again !!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:15, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And your reply was a pleasure for me also, Sandy! I think it was inevitable that as wikipedia and its articles matured, general editors would lose interest in favour of topic editors, increasing bias and eroding npov. Also, I think there is a broadly left-leaning bias in wikipedia anyway. I could never have fought these trends, and I don't want to spend my free time getting into stressful conflicts anyway. But I like to learn stuff, and there are many substandard articles on things I am interested in, so perhaps I will spend a bit of time on that. In some ways, being insignificant again makes it easier. I am well, and if you want to tell me more about the changes that I have missed, please do. I hope you are well also. Geometry guy 22:33, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again :) Ah, the changes. In no particular order:
  1. I frequently say the darn pingie-thingie ended our connections to each other; editors don't come to each other's talk pages and really talk to each other as much as we used to, rather at each other via pings.
    Gone are the days when FAC was a hub.
  2. And related to that, what once was considering canvassing, no longer is. Since you can find a sneaky way to ping any editor to anything, the whole idea of canvassing as we knew it (bringing in editors or friends who don't watch a certain area to reinforce your POV or personal preference) is out the window. All that remains is, you can ping anyone you want to anything as long as you do it neutrally.
    And that has meant furthering what was once considered coordinated editing.
  3. Attention to notability and encyclopedic content has been replaced by a WMF-mandated desire to represent certain demographics; what started with women in your day has now grown to encompass ... anything that is not a white male. Meeting notability for some groups has slid into nothingness, and there aren't enough editors to keep up with new page patrol and AFD to reduce the non-notable.
  4. Gaining adminship these days is much less about being a trusted editor who has demonstrated knowledge of content buildikng in the trenches, and much more about the fact that we need all the warm bodies we can get to deal with the volume of disruption of all kinds.
    Seeking adminship is now almost completely disassociated from writing top content; minimal engagement at the content level is sufficient to gain the tools.
    So increasingly we see editors who have literally never written an article determining the fate of those who do.
  5. The way you kept an eye on Every Single Aspect of the GA process was unparalleled. As the FA process has declined, more and more editors pursue the GA assessment level, and the volume is too much for one person to do what you did.
  6. DYK hasn't changed one iota. Unfortunately!
  7. The Copyright battle was lost years ago; the "Project" does its best to keep up, but barely scrapes the surface, doing probably just enough to forestall a lawsuit by being able to claim due diligence.
  8. POV everywhere is almost insurmountable. The noticeboards largely don't function unless a) something is utterly obvious and b) the right demographics are involved that trigger interest, and c) deep digging to recognize the POV isn't required. So you have to pick your battles, and let a lot of outright blatant POV slide, and that extends even to BLPs. The old Siegenthaler days have been forgotten. (Speaking of BLPs, did I mention DYK hasn't changed one iota? Oh, I repeat myself.)
  9. Those who can argue a point, for example like Colin, at length-- shouldn't; it's called bludgeoning these days. That's an essay (see my user page).
  10. As it has gotten harder and less rewarding to create content, standards of what defines acceptable content have declined. Barely good enough is pretty much the endorsed standard these days. There aren't enough knowledgable editors to staff the noticeboards, and add that to the canvassing issue = if you post to a noticeboard, the most likely responders won't be independent.
  11. FA isn't. I never really understood GA, rather relied on you when problems came up, so I can't speak to how or if the standards at GA have evolved. My hunch is they have probably moved down, because generally all content has moved down.
    You missed WP:DCGAR-- delisting of 200+ GAs by one editor, with one of everything (copyio, non-notable, undue, and complete made-up random stuff)
  12. WMF pushes one wacky program after another, and WikiAffiliates can pretty much wreak havoc across entire content areas, with there not being enough editors to keep up with the damage.
  13. Math articles still have problems with English :) :)
  14. Many of the old memes are out the door. "Wikipedia is not therapy"; yes it is, if you're in the right demographic. "FAC is not peer review"; yes it is. "Fringe" no longer has any meaning, as the push for inclusion and growth means anything goes.
  15. And everything together has rendered the kerfuffles about certain sockmasters benign in relation to what goes on these days at Wikipedia. In the "be careful what you wish for department", I'd almost wish to go back to the days of the biggest concern being whether a Mattisse copyedit had done more harm than good!
Am I well? Here's a fun story from when a tree tried to kill me, but I survived :) My most adorable husband nursed me through, and in my convalescence, I still beat him at card games even with halfa-brain (I think he let me win :) The music on my user page tells the story of our days; growin' old ain't for sissies, some days are harder than others, but Paul's letter to the Philippians soothes the soul.
So where's the joy in Wikipedia when writing and curating top content is no longer the focus? When an old friend stops by, it's priceless. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:26, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you overestimate the WMF's involvement in our content decisions.
The complaints about math articles have landed at Wikipedia talk:Make technical articles understandable this month, if anyone's interested. They feel approximately the same to me as they did a decade or more ago. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I overestimate the role of the WMF in promoting and funding Wiki-affiliates, with minimal guidance or oversight as to policies and guidelines. As but one example (and not the worst one), why isn't Wiki Ed better funded ? They at least try to help keep student editing policy-based, and intervene to assure communication with professors who have never edited Wikipedia, and even help clean up the damage.
On math, yep, no change over the years; the biggest problem in our math suite is not understanding the math, but the poor prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that Wiki Edu is an affiliate; I think it's just an independent non-profit organization that chooses to do something on wiki. But generally the rule, as it was told to me (and apparently announced a dozen or so years ago), is that affiliates based in wealthy countries need to raise half of their budget themselves. This protects them from being totally dependent on the WMF. I don't know that the WMF is providing fully 50% to Wiki Edu; it looks like Wiki Edu does not choose to disclose any of their grantors in their annual report.
The complaints you make above are "WMF-mandated desire to represent certain demographics" and "WMF pushes one wacky program after another". It might be fair to describe Wiki Edu as a former WMF program (the organization began by spinning off an internal program and the WMF staff who were working on it), but you seem to approve of that one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They've at least turned themselves into something helpful to the unpaid volunteers :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit of a catch-22. If they didn't exist, we would probably see fewer new (student) editors, so there would be less need for them to apologize for the mistakes the new editors make.
But I am (presumably) going to die one of these days, and if we don't get new editors in (students or otherwise), nobody will be here to replace me when that happens. Finding another "SandyGeorgia" requires us to suffer through about 100K first edits, nearly all of which will be suboptimal. Put another way, during the entire decade of Wiki Edu's existence, they have barely brought in enough newbies to find one replacement for you, or to have a chance at finding three of me. I don't know that they did find these replacements, but that's the kind of volume we're looking at. We need the newbies, but they're also kind of a pain while they're still newbies. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:19, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We need to encourage newbies who stick around, but students don't stick around; they're doing it for a grade, and they're gone as soon as they've gotten that. So at least Wiki Ed contains the damage in the short time they're here. (And you will never be replaced; Wikipedia isn't as nice as it was when any of us started, and now it's more about pushing a POV or product or person, and leaders with experience aren't emerging-- they're leaving and dying. Nor will Monnriddengrl ever be replaced, to give an example of how badly we're losing the copyright battle.) And part of the reason there won't be more of "us" is that FAC is no longer leading the way to Wikipedia's best work, with a group that also engaged policy and guideline pages to establish best practices (the SarahVs, Colins, Gguys, Awadewits, etc). Putting up barely good enough work, barely notable, inadequately checked for copyvio, with noticeboards unable to keep up with POV is the new reality, and the "newbies" don't even know the difference. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To a first approximation, nobody sticks around. Counting only registered accounts that have ever made an edit (i.e., did not give up after creating an account), the median number of edits is two, and both of those edits were made on the same day.
A few students do stick around, though some of them create new accounts, so you only find this out by asking them. I've talked to two of them myself (neither of whom wishes to be identified as the poster child for students who keep editing). Wiki Edu Foundation does not track or particularly encourage students to continue editing; their hope is to retain the instructor, rather than the students.
Although I understand some of your concerns about FAC, at least in part, I wonder if the shift in the community is more general. We are no longer trying to create content; many editors are trying to prevent others from creating content that we dislike, and our method for doing this is to pound on The Rules™, instead of common sense, knowing what good writing is, working together, etc. As a simple example, some years back, an editor declared that an article was "too promotional" because it said that the multinational company had offices "in more than 25 countries". I don't think that's promotional, and I don't think that it would have been improved by writing "in 26 countries as of Month Year, with offices presently being organized in two other countries with an expectation that they will open during the next six months", or as "in 26 countries" with Template:Update inline set to trigger in a few months. But even if you thought it was promotional, what happened to WP:SOFIXIT? The whole article was rejected, on fairly flimsy grounds. Realistically, there aren't very many corporations with offices in 25+ countries that we shouldn't have an article on. I think the reaction was driven by the fear of having a Wikipedia article that sounds anything like a corporate website, and an unwillingness to be seen as putting their stamp of approval on anything that could be questioned or might be slightly imperfect. This kind of reaction is not what you get when people know how to write a decent article and see their role as improving content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We are no longer trying to create content; many editors are trying to prevent others from creating content that we dislike, and our method for doing this is to pound on The Rules™, instead of common sense, knowing what good writing is, working together, etc.

You summarised it so well WAID. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#How do we welcome new medical editors? --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above, I admire that you persist with Wikipedia, despite all its flaws. I think all the world should be very grateful that this tree did not fall 1 inch more to the right. I lack the competence and time to comment on every change you note, but they do confirm to me that Wikipedia has been subject to the kind of institutional capture by ideologues that we have seen in political elites, from mainstream media to academia. In short, subjective viewpoints from minority groups trump objective facts. I face this problem in my day job, so I don't want to deal with it also in my free time.
I have always been more interested in improving poor articles to an acceptable level than in making the most beautiful encyclopedic articles the world has ever seen. I enjoyed my time doing some of the latter, e.g. via WP:FAT. Perhaps GA standards have gone down a bit since I left, but the project has still been successful in raising the proportion of articles that have had some independent quality control to 1 in 175 (although note that I almost never reviewed a GAN).
The articles that have many editors are either partisan, or mired in disputes, but there are also many articles that are crap because no one cares about them any more. In this climate of fewer impartial editors, I wonder if there might be some value in having a acceptable articles project, with no nomination process at all - just a tag that an independent editor, after making minor improvements, considered that the article was not terrible. Then there would only be a review process where such tags could be challenged.
(PS. Hi Whatamidoing - I noticed that complaints about maths articles have not changed, but this is because there is a constant tension in Wikipedia between being an encyclopedia and not a textbook versus making content as accessible to readers as possible. Maths needs to learn to provide better prose explanations and more links to textbook material. However, you won't convince more editors to do this in their free time if you browbeat them with complaints.) Geometry guy 00:55, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your "acceptable articles" idea is interesting, but brings us back to the other problems. Yes, Wikipedia has become the domain of ideologues, and as the proportion of editors interested in overall quality has declined, there just aren't enough editors to think about another assessment level. More and more it seems that editors are here for the bling, the perceived social capital, or the perceived power, or pursuing/pushing an ideology, and less and less for what we thought we were doing in the last decade-- building a useful reference. I do miss the kinds of conversations we used to have ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:38, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I enjoyed our conversations also and am happy to be having one with you again. I can understand pov-pushing well enough to dislike it, but was never really into barnstars/bling, except only for appreciative comments from someone I respect. How active are Wikiprojects these days? I expect it varies a lot. My vague "acceptable articles" idea would be some sort of universal B/C class, so it is completely redundant if Wikiprojects are working well. Certainly, I would not want to draw editors away from GA and FA, hence there would be no community processes beyond a talk page. Anyway, I almost certainly do not have the energy to pursue such an idea (and it would need a better name!).
I noticed you mentioned Philippians above. Although I am an atheist agnostic, I am very interested in early christian origins and teachings. In the years since I was active on Wikipedia, I have explored such interests, including making my own translation and commentary of the gospel of Mark (other projects have included trying to understand how microprocessors work - success! - and trying to understand the second genetic code of transfer RNA - failure!). What part of Philippians do you particularly like? I confess that I fail miserably at "Do everything without grumbling" ! Geometry guy 21:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProjects in general have also died out, relative to the days when you could be reasonably assured if you asked for help, you'd get it. The niche/ideologue WPs are strong. I suspect the only really active areas is where the special interests can be pushed ... Meetups ... DYK ... in addition to GA.
Mark, microprocessors and RNA ... sure I see the connection <grin> ... glad you are keeping entertained! The "fret not" and rejoice parts keep me going, when friends all around me seem overwhelmed by the state of the world. Even in hard or terrible times, I know how much I have to be thankful for. Maybe it's perspective: when I lived in Argentina, I witnessed a kidnapping, a suicide at my feet, got caught in a shootout, had the house next door blown up. When I lived in Italy, the lack of health care access was frightening. When I worked in Brazil, Colombia and Paraguay, I couldn't cross the street unless my employer sent an escort. And of course, I lived in Venezuela where you can get thrown off a building, beaten to death, tortured into submission, or raped until your private parts are destroyed. I've outlived my mother, and my husband has outlived both his mother and father. My offspring are happy. So all in all, I find that "rejoice" and "fret not" are a good approach to keep me from succumbing in despair to the horrific things happening everywhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:10, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In contrast, my life has been pretty easy. I will be happy to chat more, but I need to sleep soon, and also I discovered yesterday that Richard Dawkins interviewed Steven Weinberg in 2008 and has posted the interview recently. Horrific things happen in this world, but amazing things happen too, such as the James Webb Space Telescope. Geometry guy 00:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My Wikipedia-life's been pretty good so far except for these days where I need to do the updates of my audited content. As a small consolation, I keep stumbling on things like Hells Bells (cave formations) that I wrote but forgot about... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RBS

Hello, Sandy, and Happy Thanksgiving!

I suggest the following tweaks for the Robert B. Silvers article:

  • Instead of "Later career years" for the heading, how about just "New York Review"?
  • At the end of the first paragraph under the same heading is a sentence that says: In 2012, he added, "I can think of several people who would be marvelous editors."
I'm not sure that we still need this sentence (after his death). I don't think it adds anything to his biography. But if you delete it, please move the ref down to where it is used next.
  • American Academy of Arts and Letters appears twice in the article (incl. once in the Lead) and should be linked both times.
  • Should we add another sentence to the lead from the article's "Reputation" section?
  • Is the first paragraph of the Reputation section too much of a quote farm? I think the Joan Didion quote could be sacrificed without losing much.
  • Sherrilyn Ifill should be added to the list of Robert B. Silvers Lecturers at the end of the Legacy section (see this).

Ssilvers (talk) 23:48, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ssilvers I'll look at these when I get a free moment (unless someone else does first); have to focus on finishing up that table for AN. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No rush! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:31, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Medicine Barnstar
For your work in Clinomorphism. SVcode(Talk) 22:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, SVcode; that was very kind of you! (That article was a mess, no?). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:02, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is still a mess but it's much better thanks to you! SVcode(Talk) 00:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That thing needs to go to Wiktionary, but I have no idea how to make that happen or how to tag the article so someone will make it happen. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to make it happen: here. But Wiktionary sometimes deletes new entries for reasons I find obscure.—S Marshall T/C 09:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, S Marshall ... I shall submit it to AFD then once i have time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ask for quick feedback...

...whether Guallatiri is FAC-ready. Mostly MOS questions since I don't easily notice them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:20, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Jackson

The Andrew Jackson article has suddenly taken on new life again. It could be random, but my guess is that the article's increased scrutiny is indirectly related to contemporary events. I very much appreciate you trying to keep it stable at this time. Because of the extent of my engagement with the article- attempting to address the length issue you were concerned with and the bias debate that had sent the article into a tailspin- I'd be delighted if it actually makes it through FAR. But given the latest whirlwind of activity, who knows how it will all fall out? I just wanted to thank you again for your active engagement as the swirl around the article has seemed to pick up. Wtfiv (talk) 16:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think keeping an eye on it a bit longer in FAR is a good thing :) So we wait for EW ... I do worry that it will destabilize if we let it out too soon :) Thanks for your good work and watchful eye ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Editor experience invitation

Hi SandyGeorgia :) I'm looking to interview people here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 12:43, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prostate cancer again

Hi Sandy, Prostate cancer is edited, refreshed, and reorganized thanks to yours and Colin's comments. If you have a chance to revisit and give it another read, I'd be much obliged. SG talk page watchers are also most welcome to contribute any critical thoughts. I'm hoping to bring this to FAC sometime soon(ish). So any pre-FAC criticism is helpful. Thank you as always, and I hope you're well! Ajpolino (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will get there when I can, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:04, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Linking publishers

I'm being told that it is not normal to link publishers for articles, and have had publisher links removed from a template and article that I am the primary editor for. I feel strongly that these links should be included. Before I get any deeper in this - is it truly not normal to link publishers in FA-quality articles? I've had the impression that this is not universal but not unusual in quality article writing. Hog Farm Talk 23:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having almost the exact same discussion with the same editor on my talk page, Hog Farm! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:59, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sheesh, people get their knickers in a twist about the goofiest things. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As Nikkimaria will probably say, we can or cannot as long as we're consistent. We most certainly linked all publishers at J. K. Rowling. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am in the "don't link" group, but as long as it's consistent, it's something I think should be up to the main editor. Ealdgyth (talk) 00:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. (I was having conversations about CITEVAR with that editor more than 10 years ago!). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This kind of thing is so discouraging to the people who actually build articles, only to have to engage in discussions about personal preferences and breaches of CITEVAR. Ten years worth ... <sigh> ... reminds me of other perennials. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:14, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of tea for you

--Dustfreeworld (talk) 03:47, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Dustfreeworld, for tea to go with my tears :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:08, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
--Dustfreeworld (talk) 10:14, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday Greetings

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, people's rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension. Happy Holidays to you and yours. You mention tears above. Your corner of WikiWorld supports so many that cherish you. Enjoy your tea. ―Buster7 

Laino source

I have added content from Laino 2006 for the William Utermohlen article. I'm here on your talk page to ask if you believe that the source has been fully used and the article is now comprehensive, or if there are still some things that I have missed, and could add to the article. Thanks, Realmaxxver (talk) 16:12, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Realmaxxver I will look as soon as I'm able, but I have had some real life tragedies and am working on two funerals in the near term. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had no idea that happened. I understand. Realmaxxver (talk) 15:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Editor's Barnstar
I haven't told you how much I appreciate your work on the Parkinson's article. Even as a someone with PD I'm learning from it! Doug Weller talk 17:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Doug Weller, I appreciate that; sorry things IRL have been quite rough for me lately and I'm finding myself constantly exasperated and out of patience. Be well, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don’t worry about it. Believe me, I empathise with that. But thanks for telling me. Doug Weller talk 18:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS, Doug Weller one interesting side note about the synucleinopathies is how market/advocacy driven everything in that area is. Which part of the brain the Lewy bodies attack first determines whether one ends up with what is called dementia with Lewy bodies, Parkinson's disease dementia, or Parkinson's disease, but the different invested parties fight each other rather than working together, and end up making less progress as a result, compared to, for example, Alzheimer's. The PD people won't give up their Michael Fox-driven nomenclature, and the LBD people won't give up their territory, so we end up with a confusing nomenclature and different advocacy orgs not working together on one spectrum all driven by Lewy bodies. If you give dementia with Lewy bodies a solid read, you'll end up learning as much about Parkinson's disease and its dementia as you can learn at the PD article. I am constantly frustrated by how advocacy-driven the issues are in the area of synucleinopathies, which is probably a big part of my frustration about the focus on one image, when the entire article is a wreck. To write these articles, one has to have a good understanding of which parties are leaning which direction with their advocacy, so actually, History is the best starting place! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. I really need to get my head around that. I know there’s DNA research being done and I’ve donated my saliva and taken part in some movement research. Logitech even gave ma a mouse. I have no idea where my consultant stands on all of this, just that he’s well respected and a really lovely person. I don’t want to pry but I am impressed by your knowledge. As I said, I want to help Erica, who did the actual drawing. The confusion isn’t surprising fome people who have no experience with Wikipedia being advised by someone who hasn’t much experience with uploading images! Doug Weller talk 19:10, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am so terrified of images, but I suspect I've warn out my welcome with Colin :)
So, imagine if all the PD and all the LBD people joined forces and worked together, instead of fighting each other for market niche ... it really all comes down to which part of the body the little buggers attack first, and if all of the invested parties were on the same page, the resources would go so much farther !! But the researchers have their niches, ditto for the advocacy groups ... while all the Alzheimer's people are behind one big org. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!


Have a great Christmas, and may 2024 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls, vandals or visits from Krampus!

Cheers

SchroCat (talk) 09:35, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Season's greetings!

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

New message from Jo-Jo Eumerus

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Mount Hudson § On the 1991 eruption. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Season's Greetings

Season's Greetings
Wishing everybody a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! The Nativity scene on the Pulpit in the Pisa Baptistery by Nicola Pisano is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 02:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A solstice greeting

❄️ Happy holidays! ❄️

Hi Sandy! I'd like to wish you a splendid solstice season as we wrap up the year. Here is an artwork, made individually for you, to celebrate. Thanks as always for the invaluable work you do at FAC. Take care, and thanks for all you do to make Wikipedia better!
Cheers,
{{u|Sdkb}}talk
Solstice Celebration for SandyGeorgia, 2023, DALL·E 3. (View full series) Note: The vibes are winter solsticey. If you're in the southern hemisphere, oops, apologies.
Solstice Celebration for SandyGeorgia, 2023, DALL·E 3.
Note: The vibes are winter solsticey. If you're in the southern hemisphere, oops, apologies.

{{u|Sdkb}}talk 07:00, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Season's greetings

Looks like you've gotten most of the standard templates already, so I'll write my holiday wishes out by hand. Thanks for all you do on Wikipedia. Have a merry Christmas and a happy New Year. Spicy (talk) 17:36, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas greetings

Maria Gloriosa

May the bells of Christmas ring for freedom![1]

May peace be upon us.

And have a happy and prosperous New Year. 7&6=thirteen () 18:42, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]








References

  1. ^ Malpas, Anna (December 24, 2023). "How Ukraine independence song became a Christmas classic". AFP.

Season's Greetings

(Sent: 02:42, 25 December 2023 (UTC)) Shearonink (talk) 02:42, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Current GAN on Penang

Hi there, after lurking through current GA nominations, I realized that one of them, Penang, was previously invalidated roughly a year ago (discussion) as it was self-nominated and passed with the use of sockpuppets, who edited exclusively on Penang and Penang-related articles, including on George Town, Penang, which was also delisted for identical reasons.

While it is indeed true that these cases will not prevent a future nomination at some point in the future via an independent GA review, the fact that the current nominator is a fresh account created only about a month or so ago that is *also* exclusively editing on Penang and Penang-related articles in an identical manner (including George Town, Penang among others) seems oddly quick, suspicious and convenient. With their edits, it seems like they also intend to put George Town, Penang up for GAN as well after Penang gets re-passed as a GA. What do you think? 49.169.99.156 (talk) 05:11, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas !


Christmas postcard
~ ~ ~ Merry Christmas! ~ ~ ~

Hello SandyGeorgia: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 16:46, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

Tricolor Barnstar
If I'm not mistaken you've received this barnstar in the past, but I guess one can't get too many of them, especially when hard work deserves to be recognized. I send you my utmost respect and very best wishes. NoonIcarus (talk) 19:48, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Season's greetings

Felices fiestas
Because old habits die hard. I hope you can share these days with your loved ones and that they are full of joy.

Happy holidays! NoonIcarus (talk) 19:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

Happy New Year!
Wishing you and yours a Happy New Year, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free and may Janus light your way. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:45, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

Happy New Year, SandyGeorgia!

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

 — Amakuru (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History lesson on lists

When did we start officially encouraging sources for lists?

I'm pretty sure that, several years ago, I saw an old version of a guideline that said lists (not just dab pages, but ordinary 'List of films made in this country' type lists) should not cite sources. I can't find it now. Does anyone else remember this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:26, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yukky things

Welp, inspired by your yukky things I tried to ask for an edit of lede in Hernán Cortés about a woman who "bore his first son" to make the language less sexist, but was preciously ignored. Well, at least I tried. Ellegony (talk) 11:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DeadbeefBot

I didn't remember the notice at the top of the talk page, so I just left you a ping and got occupied with other stuff. A proper notification this time :) Would appreciate your feedback on this. (You can find a more detailed summary of the edits the bot made during the trial here) 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 12:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia needs you!

@SandyGeorgia: Sandy, your holiday has been too long. When are you coming back? --Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to check in to make sure you were still doing alright, as well. Hog Farm Talk 23:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1 ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:35, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1 to the above, hope all is well. Eddie891 Talk Work 02:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, if you return we will elect you coordinator of ITN... tempting, I know ;) Aza24 (talk) 07:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1 --Dustfreeworld (talk) 06:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please be safe and sound, in good health, and in all things blessed. Godspeed. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 09:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Hope you are well. You have a God-given baloney detector that won't quit. Without you Minneapolis might still be "second only to New York City in live theater per capita" and have the "fourth-highest percent of LGBTQ" in the US. Miss you. Much obliged, SusanLesch (talk) 21:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+2, just in case if a +1 is not enough. Panini! 🥪 22:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Been missing you SG. I had a dream last night that you made some minor edit somewhere, and I was relieved to know you're alive and well, even if still mostly detached from this project. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Miss you. MUCH. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 06:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Stay safe. My best wishes, --NoonIcarus (talk) 03:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, I'm so sorry you suffered such a traumatic event. Losing one person is tough but two around same time is crazy difficult. I know the feeling and I know dealing with the grief takes time. I hope being with your children and taking this break has allowed you to somewhat cope and process. Just know that there are those here in this community that love and care about you. We admire your strength to make it through this difficult time and we appreciate what you mean to this community. Your impact is felt. I sing for strength and wholeness over you on this journey. --ARoseWolf 15:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A bowl of soup for you!

A bowl of soup for you!

I have given you a barnstar to thank you for all you have done already. I don’t know what else to give … I hope you like this. :-) I hope all is well with you and yours. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 10:15, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Through my short time editing Wikipedia I have found you an excellent administrator who has the potential to fairly resolve conflicts with speed and proficiency, even when there is a large power disparity in such a conflict. Scientelenisa (talk) 13:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CCI update

CCI complete

Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20220720 is now complete. Thank you for your assistance in the evaluation of this CCI!

Sennecaster (Chat) 02:31, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

story · music · places

Thank you for your work there, and best wishes for whatever you do! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cataract surgery

Hello, friendly talk page stalkers. I wonder if a few of you would comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cataract surgery/archive1. This article is relevant to anyone who is old, who knows someone who is old, or who hopes to be old in the future. It averages 20K page views a month, which means that having the best article we can is important to the world.

If you're not up for a full review, then please do a partial review. Even having someone post something like "I read the ==Section== and I didn't understand ____" would be helpful. Thanks for considering my request, WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:14, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, User:SandyGeorgia! I was wondering if you have the time to leave a comment on the talk page for the Digital media use and mental health article in the FAR notice section. You raised issues with the content of the article at the FAR notice discussion last November and December that I've attempted to address, but I was hoping if you could provide some additional comments to what I've tried to do to improve the article. I didn't know that you don't get along with pings, so I guess it's a good thing that I decided to leave a talk page message. :) -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]