SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) →Olive branch: add |
MichaelKelso420 (talk | contribs) →hi: new section |
||
Line 85: | Line 85: | ||
We clashed once in the past over citation style in [[Callous and unemotional traits]], but I have made a best effort [[Talk:Callous_and_unemotional_traits#Primary_.E2.86.92_secondary_sources|here]] and [[Talk:Callous_and_unemotional_traits#Proposed_primary_.E2.86.92_secondary_citation_changes|here]] to replace primary with secondary sources. Please note that I am a medicinal chemist and not psychologist so there is a limit to what I can do to improve the sourcing of this article. With respect to formatting style, I was trying to find a compromise that was acceptable to everyone. Furthermore I do strongly prefer the concise Diberri/Vancouver citation style and that is why I am [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Ref_style|trying my best]] to get it running again. Cheers. [[User:Boghog|Boghog]] ([[User talk:Boghog|talk]]) 19:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC) |
We clashed once in the past over citation style in [[Callous and unemotional traits]], but I have made a best effort [[Talk:Callous_and_unemotional_traits#Primary_.E2.86.92_secondary_sources|here]] and [[Talk:Callous_and_unemotional_traits#Proposed_primary_.E2.86.92_secondary_citation_changes|here]] to replace primary with secondary sources. Please note that I am a medicinal chemist and not psychologist so there is a limit to what I can do to improve the sourcing of this article. With respect to formatting style, I was trying to find a compromise that was acceptable to everyone. Furthermore I do strongly prefer the concise Diberri/Vancouver citation style and that is why I am [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Ref_style|trying my best]] to get it running again. Cheers. [[User:Boghog|Boghog]] ([[User talk:Boghog|talk]]) 19:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC) |
||
: I always enjoy getting olive branches from editors I don't recall ever having "clashed" with :) Looking back, I see that article was one of those student-edited projects where Wikipedia was left with a huge cleanup task, and it looks like you are still on it, over a year later <sigh>. Thank you so much for working to fix Diberri ... I used to know lots of folks in here who would gladly and quickly jump in to help you, but I'm afraid they've all given up or been chased off, and there is no one I can suggest who might help. If you do get it going, I will be thrilled! Best, [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 19:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC) |
: I always enjoy getting olive branches from editors I don't recall ever having "clashed" with :) Looking back, I see that article was one of those student-edited projects where Wikipedia was left with a huge cleanup task, and it looks like you are still on it, over a year later <sigh>. Thank you so much for working to fix Diberri ... I used to know lots of folks in here who would gladly and quickly jump in to help you, but I'm afraid they've all given up or been chased off, and there is no one I can suggest who might help. If you do get it going, I will be thrilled! Best, [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 19:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC) |
||
== hi == |
|||
<center><div style="width:100%; background: #000080; font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif; font-size: 95%;"> |
|||
{| style="text-align:center; border: 30px inset #C9765A; background-color:#000000" |
|||
|- padding:1em;padding-top:0.5em;" |
|||
! style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; color: #C9EEEE; font-size: 1.5cm; line-height: 1.3em;" colspan="2"|SMOKE WEED EVERYDAY |
|||
[[Image:Cannabis sativa00.jpg|300px|]] |
|||
|- |
|||
|style="font-size: 0.7cm; ; color: #C9765A"|420 BLAZE IT |
|||
|- |
|||
|} |
|||
</div></center> |
Revision as of 20:37, 31 October 2013
About me | Talk to me | To do list | Tools and other useful things | Some of my work | Nice things | Yukky things | Archives |
2006 · 2007 · 2008 · 2009 · 2010 · 2011 · 2012 · 2013–2015 · 2016–2017 · 2018 · 2019 · 2020 · FA archive sorting · 2021 · 2022 · 2023 Jan–Mar (DCGAR) · 2023 Apr–Aug · 2023 Aug–Dec · 2023 Seasons greetings · 2024 Jan– |
I prefer to keep conversations together and usually respond on my talk page, so watch the page for my reply.
To leave me a message, click
Poor Man's Talk Back
I replied to you post here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:26, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- Neutralhomer, your offer to meatpuppet for Gerda in the Infobox wars is yet another indication that the arb case is either not understood or not taken seriously-- the number of editors colluding on the infobox situation was the basis of the problem to begin with, that led to the arbcase. (That personal attacks of that nature are becoming the norm, not dealt with anywhere, is no longer surprising.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:43, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- It has been taken to ArbCom for clarification and personally, I can't see how a user adding an infobox hurts anyone. It seems silly to prevent someone from adding something constructive (and infoboxes are constructive) to any Wikipedia page. It seems even sillier to prevent anyone from adding infoboxes for that editor. Regardless of what ArbCom says, it seems like this is a way to prevent an established and well-respected editor from editing.
- I will await ArbCom's ruling on this one and proceed according to that. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- Again, still, you don't seem to be aware of or acknowledge the disruption caused to Wikipedia by editors colluding on technical issues. "I can't see how a user adding an infobox hurts anyone" indicates you may not be familiar with the case, or the issue that more editing by proxy is not what those involved in that case need. What they need is to curtail their attacks on those who disagree with them on the usefulness of infoboxes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:59, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- Adding an infobox to a page is an "attack"?! What?! Explain to me how you came up with that theory. Are we now restricting people we disagree with? I don't agree with you, let's put some restrictions on you and vice versa? It's an infobox...come on! - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- The attack was by Montanabw on someone pointing out an infobox issue: this is characteristic of what has gone on throughout that case. Please focus: I don't really have time to bring you up to speed on an old case. I do have time to point out to you that suggesting that I will wade into that mess is not sound ... one would think admins would deal with the situation without more need for more editors to be drawn into the imbroglio and factions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- OK, so you won't give me the short version of this "case", but you will tell me that I shouldn't take up this fight. That's the kind of answer that makes me want to. An infobox is not an attack, it is not a faction and it is not anything one should be restricted over. You have obviously forgotten why you are here, you are here to edit an encyclopedia, not put restrictions on people you clearly disagree with. You are not the Wikipedia Police Department, you are an editor. If you think you are anything more than that, please consult the "log out" link above. None of us should discourage an editor from expanding an article, as you are, over something one doesn't have the time to explain. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:43, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- I wouldn't mind taking the time to walk you through the case and the history if you would first read what is already on the page. Unless you are being deliberately obtuse, the attack is not hard to find. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- Neutralhomer, please read through all of the pages associated with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes, to see what the fuss is about. Adding infoboxes is not an attack (and Sandy never said it was), but there are factions associated with adding/removing infoboxes, and it is the kind of thing several people were restricted over. A lot of people think that adding/removing infoboxes is a really big deal, and Gerda was one of several people who gained editing restrictions when the issue was taken before ArbCom. This is not Sandy unilaterally imposing editing restrictions, or even several editors imposing them - it is a major issue that was taken before ArbCom that has resulted multiple ArbCom-enforced editing restrictions. You may not find it a big deal to add an infobox, but a lot of people do. I hope this clears some things up. Dana boomer (talk) 00:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you, Dana! I was beginning to wonder if I was speaking Spanish :) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- Neutralhomer, please read through all of the pages associated with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes, to see what the fuss is about. Adding infoboxes is not an attack (and Sandy never said it was), but there are factions associated with adding/removing infoboxes, and it is the kind of thing several people were restricted over. A lot of people think that adding/removing infoboxes is a really big deal, and Gerda was one of several people who gained editing restrictions when the issue was taken before ArbCom. This is not Sandy unilaterally imposing editing restrictions, or even several editors imposing them - it is a major issue that was taken before ArbCom that has resulted multiple ArbCom-enforced editing restrictions. You may not find it a big deal to add an infobox, but a lot of people do. I hope this clears some things up. Dana boomer (talk) 00:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- I wouldn't mind taking the time to walk you through the case and the history if you would first read what is already on the page. Unless you are being deliberately obtuse, the attack is not hard to find. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- OK, so you won't give me the short version of this "case", but you will tell me that I shouldn't take up this fight. That's the kind of answer that makes me want to. An infobox is not an attack, it is not a faction and it is not anything one should be restricted over. You have obviously forgotten why you are here, you are here to edit an encyclopedia, not put restrictions on people you clearly disagree with. You are not the Wikipedia Police Department, you are an editor. If you think you are anything more than that, please consult the "log out" link above. None of us should discourage an editor from expanding an article, as you are, over something one doesn't have the time to explain. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:43, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- The attack was by Montanabw on someone pointing out an infobox issue: this is characteristic of what has gone on throughout that case. Please focus: I don't really have time to bring you up to speed on an old case. I do have time to point out to you that suggesting that I will wade into that mess is not sound ... one would think admins would deal with the situation without more need for more editors to be drawn into the imbroglio and factions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- Adding an infobox to a page is an "attack"?! What?! Explain to me how you came up with that theory. Are we now restricting people we disagree with? I don't agree with you, let's put some restrictions on you and vice versa? It's an infobox...come on! - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- Again, still, you don't seem to be aware of or acknowledge the disruption caused to Wikipedia by editors colluding on technical issues. "I can't see how a user adding an infobox hurts anyone" indicates you may not be familiar with the case, or the issue that more editing by proxy is not what those involved in that case need. What they need is to curtail their attacks on those who disagree with them on the usefulness of infoboxes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:59, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
@Dana: TL;DR, gimme the short version.
@Sandy: You were speaking, what I like to call, "round-about English". English that goes around in circles and doesn't really make a point, but uses big words. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- Seriously? I gave you the short version above. So let me try again, with little words and short sentences. Some people like infoboxes. Some don't. They fight. They went to ArbCom. ArbCom told a bunch of people to knock it off. Including Gerda. </end of short sentences> Now, for some advice: if you want to get involved in the infobox issue, I suggest you get used to reading long pages, and drop TL;DR from your vocabulary. Dana boomer (talk) 01:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, seriously. ArbCom discussions all meld into one after awhile, I like short versions. Still doesn't explain why people don't like infoboxes and how that prevents someone from editing/expanding an article....or editing period in some cases.
- I'll drop TL;DR from my vocabulary when you drop the attitude. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- If it was simple and able to be explained in a sentence, a paragraph, even a computer screen's-worth of text, it wouldn't be at ArbCom. To understand why some people/projects don't like infoboxes, you have to read their arguments - it has to do with appearance, necessity, breaking complicated ideas into little (sometimes oversimplified) chunks, etc. ArbCom doesn't rule on content though, they rule on conduct. And they ruled that several editors, including Gerda, had acted in such a way (tendentious editing, editing against consensus, WP:IDHT, etc.) as to necessitate sanctions. In Gerda's case, this included an injunction against adding infoboxes to any article she hadn't created. Also, per ArbCom policy, if an editor is restricted from doing something, other editors are prohibited for doing that something for them, as is currently being explained at the ArbCom clarifications page. But again, this whole paragraph that I have just written is way too simplistic (and I'm sure I'm going to hear about it from people who participated in the case). As I said above, if you want to understand disputes that end up at ArbCom, you're going to need to be able to read and digest long pages, because simple disputes that can be easily explained in non-TLDR fashion don't end up at ArbCom. And I would have seriously thought that an experienced editor such as yourself would not have to have this explained to him, several times, by several editors. Dana boomer (talk) 01:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- One, I like bite-sized bits of information.
- Two, I think ArbCom is waaay too full of themselves, always have, and they all have forgotten why they are here.
- Three, anything can be explained in non-TLDR fashion if you take the time.
- Four, when an infobox causes an ArbCom investigation, people are taking themselves waaay too seriously and have forgotten why they are here.
- Five, I have Aspergers (and Dyslexic), I lose interest in something quickly if not explained fast (hence the bite-sized bits of information).
- Six, stupid decisions by bureaucracy (like in DC) normally have to be explained several times, so that even the most experienced people (like in DC) can understand it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- Well, that does clarify why you'd perceive infoboxes as an unalloyed good. If you want some background, User:Geogre/Templates is well-balanced but you may find it a bit long; Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes is more easily read but also more polemical. Like most ARBCOM decisions, this isn't really "about" infoboxes (or dashes-versus-hyphens, or whatever triviality you like); it's about people's behavior making use of them. Gerda's behavior during the case made it clear that she was going to continue making and using infoboxes in ways that upset other productive editors, to the maximum extent possible without breaking the letter of the rules. It's a shame that these constraints hinder her editing: she's a talented and productive editor. But she would not be laboring under an onerous external restraint if she had shown internal restraint or better judgment. Choess (talk) 15:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- ArbCom cases are hardly ever about what they appear on the face of it to be about, but that's by the by. Why do some people get so agitated about infoboxes? Some infoboxes are arguably useful and others are arguably a blot on the landscape. Pigsonthewing has much to answer for here, with his empty rhetoric about metadata. Eric Corbett 16:13, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- Well, not intending to throw too many of the aforementioned "big words" at Homer, but the entire infoboxes case was just a proxy for collusion among a group of like-minded editors (that is, all about cabalism, never really even about infoboxes).
In the name of "infoboxes", one group of editors who were roughly (but not exclusively) aligned around technical issues and around returning users breaching cleanstart and various socks disrupting FA pages, has been allowed to indiscriminately block, attack and insult their "perceived" "enemies"; chase off multiple productive editors, both those building content and those also engaged in technical editing; impose technical preferences well beyond the infobox issue; apply the same admin double standards that Malleus thought he was fighting against for years in ways that they seemed to think would silence their "perceived" "enemies" (and in several cases has), choosing to ignore personalization, battleground, and personal attacks among their own; create battlegrounds not only in content editing areas like infoboxes, but also on Wikipedia-space pages, in content review processes, and on dispute resolution pages; work together to preserve POV in articles; and .... well, the list goes on ... and the arbs didn't even get to address most of this, but not surprisingly, the signs of the extent of these issues and the editors involved are showing themselves since the case closed. As always, it is unlikely that the arbs were not aware of all that was going on-- but no one presented all the evidence.
So, for Neutralhomer, although you are not the first (and won't likely be the last) to offer to or to actually act as a proxy in the broader issues surrounding the infobox case, I hope you now understand why such conduct is viewed by the arbs as disruptive, and actually has been and remains a factor in battleground conduct based on factionalism (to wit, the attack which led to this discussion). Re Choess's comments about Gerda, I suspect that what got her noticed by the arbs, although many involved went undetected, is a never-ending defense (from a well-established editor) that began to sound one time too many like "I don't know nothin' 'bout birthin' babies". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- Well, not intending to throw too many of the aforementioned "big words" at Homer, but the entire infoboxes case was just a proxy for collusion among a group of like-minded editors (that is, all about cabalism, never really even about infoboxes).
- ArbCom cases are hardly ever about what they appear on the face of it to be about, but that's by the by. Why do some people get so agitated about infoboxes? Some infoboxes are arguably useful and others are arguably a blot on the landscape. Pigsonthewing has much to answer for here, with his empty rhetoric about metadata. Eric Corbett 16:13, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- Well, that does clarify why you'd perceive infoboxes as an unalloyed good. If you want some background, User:Geogre/Templates is well-balanced but you may find it a bit long; Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes is more easily read but also more polemical. Like most ARBCOM decisions, this isn't really "about" infoboxes (or dashes-versus-hyphens, or whatever triviality you like); it's about people's behavior making use of them. Gerda's behavior during the case made it clear that she was going to continue making and using infoboxes in ways that upset other productive editors, to the maximum extent possible without breaking the letter of the rules. It's a shame that these constraints hinder her editing: she's a talented and productive editor. But she would not be laboring under an onerous external restraint if she had shown internal restraint or better judgment. Choess (talk) 15:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- If it was simple and able to be explained in a sentence, a paragraph, even a computer screen's-worth of text, it wouldn't be at ArbCom. To understand why some people/projects don't like infoboxes, you have to read their arguments - it has to do with appearance, necessity, breaking complicated ideas into little (sometimes oversimplified) chunks, etc. ArbCom doesn't rule on content though, they rule on conduct. And they ruled that several editors, including Gerda, had acted in such a way (tendentious editing, editing against consensus, WP:IDHT, etc.) as to necessitate sanctions. In Gerda's case, this included an injunction against adding infoboxes to any article she hadn't created. Also, per ArbCom policy, if an editor is restricted from doing something, other editors are prohibited for doing that something for them, as is currently being explained at the ArbCom clarifications page. But again, this whole paragraph that I have just written is way too simplistic (and I'm sure I'm going to hear about it from people who participated in the case). As I said above, if you want to understand disputes that end up at ArbCom, you're going to need to be able to read and digest long pages, because simple disputes that can be easily explained in non-TLDR fashion don't end up at ArbCom. And I would have seriously thought that an experienced editor such as yourself would not have to have this explained to him, several times, by several editors. Dana boomer (talk) 01:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
autism
Hi Sandy. I agree about having high standards for material on the autism page. I hope we don't end up in a fight. Sometimes the editors I meet who revert sex-difference material can get really worked up. I hope this isn't one of those times. We both just want the best article, right? Leadwind (talk) 20:28, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you have encountered past issues with "sex-difference material", but I have no such history, concerns or issues. I do expect text inserted into any (medical) featured article to comply with WP:UNDUE and to meet the sourcing standards at WP:MEDRS, and the criteria at WP:WIAFA. You have made some good suggestions for improvements to the leads, but discussion of other text would best continue on article talk. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Moving entire section to Talk:Autism; again, please discuss articles on article talk where everyone can participate. [1] [2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Sandy and Leadwind, I have been an observer of the autism article for sometime now, and find it completely out of step with international reseach form the last 5 years or more. And as you are aware I have virtually no copy editing skills. However you may find some of the research papers included the CiteULike Autism library of some help to radically update the article dolfrog (talk) 17:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- We do not disagree that a full rewrite of that article is overdue, and now the situation is even more complicated because autism spectrum should be the more prominent article, per DSM5 (and the autism article frequently mixes the old classic autism with autism spectrum-- so BOTH articles are now a mess). Yes, there are problems ... but loading up the autism article with one researcher's theories (UNDUE) is not the way to solve the issues at that article. I would encourage Leadwind to seek out the most recent, high quality, independent secondary reviews from which a rewrite can be undertaken, and to propose his edits on talk. As things stand now, he has curiously assigned all sorts of motive to edits by others, which is beginning to raise a red flag to me as to why he seems to be attempting to rewrite the article from the POV of one researcher (UNDUE). Picking the work of one researcher, using sources from that researcher, and adding that text to articles creates POV; the way to go is to find the best and most recent reviews, and rewrite from there ... that approach is more likely to result in a balanced article.
PS, just to be clear, I am not saying that Leadwind is intentionally creating POV; I am contrasting, in general terms, the best way to write an article vs. another way that can lead to POV, whether intentional or not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'd love to see the article rewritten, and I'm up for doing some of the writing. Sandy, even though I think Simon Baron-Cohen looks like an important voice in contemporary autism research, I won't try to give him and his work more space than they're due. His work should be included (given due weight) but not over-inculded (given undue weight). We both want to see Baron-Cohen and the extreme male brain theory given the right amount of weight, right? It will be nice to have a fresh start. Leadwind (talk) 05:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- From the discussions at Talk:Autism, it seems you aren't yet understanding principles of sourcing on Wikipedia. Perhaps some of the emphasis you want to place on one researcher's work could be used to clean up the messes at mind-blindness and empathizing–systemizing theory (which is a redirect from extreme male brain). At autism, where we have plentiful high quality, secondary, independent, recent reviews, we give due weight to any researcher's work according to our sourcing guidelines. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'd love to see the article rewritten, and I'm up for doing some of the writing. Sandy, even though I think Simon Baron-Cohen looks like an important voice in contemporary autism research, I won't try to give him and his work more space than they're due. His work should be included (given due weight) but not over-inculded (given undue weight). We both want to see Baron-Cohen and the extreme male brain theory given the right amount of weight, right? It will be nice to have a fresh start. Leadwind (talk) 05:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- We do not disagree that a full rewrite of that article is overdue, and now the situation is even more complicated because autism spectrum should be the more prominent article, per DSM5 (and the autism article frequently mixes the old classic autism with autism spectrum-- so BOTH articles are now a mess). Yes, there are problems ... but loading up the autism article with one researcher's theories (UNDUE) is not the way to solve the issues at that article. I would encourage Leadwind to seek out the most recent, high quality, independent secondary reviews from which a rewrite can be undertaken, and to propose his edits on talk. As things stand now, he has curiously assigned all sorts of motive to edits by others, which is beginning to raise a red flag to me as to why he seems to be attempting to rewrite the article from the POV of one researcher (UNDUE). Picking the work of one researcher, using sources from that researcher, and adding that text to articles creates POV; the way to go is to find the best and most recent reviews, and rewrite from there ... that approach is more likely to result in a balanced article.
- Hi Sandy and Leadwind, I have been an observer of the autism article for sometime now, and find it completely out of step with international reseach form the last 5 years or more. And as you are aware I have virtually no copy editing skills. However you may find some of the research papers included the CiteULike Autism library of some help to radically update the article dolfrog (talk) 17:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I see PMID 22363193 is being cited on the student sandbox for causes of autism. It isn't entirely a secondary source, as it proposes a new theory in addition to recapping existing ones. I did enjoy this paragraph.
It is generally accepted that most humans used to live in hunter-gatherer societies, in which men fulfilled the role of hunter, and women the role of gatherer. Systemizing may have been important in developing tools and weapons, in hunting, tracking, and trading. Empathizing may have been disadvantageous in situations where rivals had to be eliminated, and in situations where one had to tolerate solitude, while being far away from home for hunting. For women, empathizing may have been more important because of mothering, making new friends (women used to marry into new groups), gossiping, and inferring the thoughts of a possible mate (to discover whether he is willing to invest in offspring). So having an extreme male brain, a condition which we strongly associate with autism, may have had practical advantages given demands of ancestral times. These advantages would have conferred greater reproductive success, thus ensuring the continued existence of this condition.
I thought these evolutionary psychology "just so stories" had been debunked already? What a load of guff. Colin°Talk 11:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Hard to explain to an entire course with a professor unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies, but it appears it will fall to us because it will hit our watchlists. Ya know. As usual. Just when I have been struggling to get some real work done in here, we are being hit by huge amounts of WP:IDHT across multiple articles, including four FAs. And User:Biosthmors hopes half a dozen editors can keep FAs updated with a few hours work a day. The student edits will be a problem; that they are being encouraged to create UNDUE is another problem. That DSM5 updates are needed everywhere doesn't help. That the Causes article has gotten out of hand since Eubulides left is another ... <sigh>. And would you think an international forum for the advancement of medical sciences by students might be a red flag concerning reliability? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:20, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- I feel a need to highlight this for some strange reason: For women ... gossiping, and inferring the thoughts of a possible mate (to discover whether he is willing to invest in offspring). No, we just wanna know if he's good in bed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Case Western course
Thanks for the useful suggestions for the course assignment and students. They've done some, although not all of the suggested site visits. I was stunned to see that one had plagiarized. Fast work on your part! Sanetti (talk) 01:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
FA quality
Hi. I was just superficially scanning this at Wikipediocracy, where they lambast a couple of FAs. (Don't know if the criticism is warranted.) I've only been through the process once about a year ago, and found it excoriating, chastening and very worthwhile. That was for a fairly demanding medical article. Do you have a view on the the current status of FA review? Generally OK? Curate's egg? (I've been meaning to get involved at FA but keep getting distracted by other stuff.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- Please do get involved (help is needed), but do not be guided by current reviewing standards. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Mally
Im assuming Eric = Mally, but its a bit confusing to use other names in the thread, particularly when I'm fairly sure Eric is his rl name. Care to elucidate? Gaijin42 (talk) 16:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- Eric is indeed my real name, and Eric = Mally; my previous username was Malleus Fatuorum, fully disclosed. Eric Corbett 19:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi
Thanks for incorporating the tic-related/Tourettic OCD bits. It's something of a gray area that seems worth mentioning. My mistake about using a case report. I'll work with secondary reviews from now on. I was also wondering about an edit you made regarding "terminology" in the schizophrenia article - aren't psychotic individuals just individuals with psychosis? Cheers. --Humorideas (talk) 10:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- Funny thing ... I woulda sworn it was mentioned, but I guess it might have gotten removed during the attempts to shorten the article when it went through FAC (when I probably said too much on the topic!). I'm trying to rework a lot of that suite of articles now to make sure DSM5 is reflected (but got sidetracked by student editing issues at most articles I watchlist), so I may add another sentence or two on that as I work through the entire suite over the next few weeks. If I find a "free full text available" secondary source that discusses the fuzzy line between tics and OCBs, I'll use it instead. It's hard to draw a line on how much comorbidity to include in an overview article that has sub-articles, but that is definitely one that should have been in there. So, thanks for jogging the memory!
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches gives an overview of how to apply WP:MEDRS, in case you haven't seen it.
On the individuals with ... see the last point at Wikipedia:MEDMOS#Careful_language. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Too small a picture
Hi Sandy. The bigger picture you talk about is actually a small snapshot of the general malaise across the entire encyclopedia. Not only is it being felt in the quality articles, but also across RfA and many other places. Editors are disappearing leaving only those who have a good reason to be here. It's not the admins against the content contributors, or Arbcom against the community or anything like that - it's just that the only people left are so steadfast in whatever their beliefs are that they refuse to look at compromise. Double standards were always going to be a problem on a wiki, because some things don't get noticed, other things have a blind eye turned. Is it why people left? In part, yes. I think the main reason people left is because it got too hard to stay. The "easy" articles were done. The interesting articles had too many people fighting your changes.
Eric is his own little problem, his own worst enemy. If he were just complaining about admin abuse, I wouldn't be trying to change things, admin abuse needs to be highlighted. It's the aggravating comments he makes at articles he's worked on that really cause issues. Some people end up at his page to try and resolve the dispute in good faith. Others just turn up to badger him and deserve what they get. It's sorting the two that's the problem, both seem to be treated the same way. WormTT(talk) 15:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- I see different problems than you see ... but we do agree it is a general malaise. You see, I think Eric has always been the canary in the coal mine, and since very early on in my Wikicareer I was targeted by an admin cabal, I knew all too well that what happened to him could happen to all of us (we could be painted by one grudge-bearing admin, and that would follow us forever), and I think anyone who has any hope left for this place should pay attention to the real Eric message. It's really no skin off his back if he is chased out of here, and that makes sense to me ... who wants to be part of such a corrupt mess if the corruption isn't addressed? As long as abusive admins are allowed to continue, he will probably continue to point it out and use exactly whatever language he is comfortable with. And when he is finally chased out of here, the number of editors who still have some hope and still do most of the real work in here who will leave with him may surprise. I always knew he was right, but after the last real admin-cabal was busted in a large case that resulted in a desysopping and another warning (largely, an arb told me, on my evidence), I had some hope. I now have first-hand knowledge that what has been done to Eric can be done to anyone in here, no matter how much one has contributed, no matter how abusive, yet those same admins will protect their friends (double standard). Editors like Eric don't need this place. It does need him. I hope folks who still have a chance to make a difference do not miss the forest for the trees. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- Let me distill down what Sandy's saying - "It's an encyclopedia, not a social networking site." The aim is to build an encyclopedia - and all other rules, guidelines, etc should be subordinated to the creation of content. For years we've heard about how important it is to flesh out the "big" articles. Why don't you ask Eric about his experiences trying to improve the Information technology article? Or ask me about trying to deal with Middle Ages? Or Sandy dealing with any of the big picture medical articles she works on? Admin's should be supporting those efforts but the stupid idiocy that "admins don't decide content" basically means that the actual people writing the content have to deal with crap piled on crap because the people who logically should be supporting the content creators instead have to play silly games about being neutral on content. INstead editors end up having to spend hours and hours of time trying to deal "civily" and "not bite" when dealing with the most egregious nonsense. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'm glad you spoke up, but I'm not sure that is my point, exactly. Yes, it's a Facebook, social-networking problem, but one where admins who can't or won't or are unable to create content align themselves with cabals and apply policy unevenly to protect their friends and promote their own perception of being useful and powerful. Some of the protected also write, so I am not saying content contributors need protection-- that is in fact part of the problem. But heck, if admin cabals are going to favor certain content creators while blocking others for lesser offense, double standard ... it really is all about power, and those who can't create content seem to gain theirs by aligning themselves with different factions and using their block buttons selectively to gain favor. I am far less troubled by Mally's f'ing c's than I am by certain groups who have had an extremely negative net effect on all content review processes by using intimidation to silence anyone who correctly, neutrally and impersonally weights in on content issues. Yet the same admins who cook up false blocks for anyone who disagrees with that group defends outrageously uncivilized behavior in others because they don't use f'ing c's. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- Let me distill down what Sandy's saying - "It's an encyclopedia, not a social networking site." The aim is to build an encyclopedia - and all other rules, guidelines, etc should be subordinated to the creation of content. For years we've heard about how important it is to flesh out the "big" articles. Why don't you ask Eric about his experiences trying to improve the Information technology article? Or ask me about trying to deal with Middle Ages? Or Sandy dealing with any of the big picture medical articles she works on? Admin's should be supporting those efforts but the stupid idiocy that "admins don't decide content" basically means that the actual people writing the content have to deal with crap piled on crap because the people who logically should be supporting the content creators instead have to play silly games about being neutral on content. INstead editors end up having to spend hours and hours of time trying to deal "civily" and "not bite" when dealing with the most egregious nonsense. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Olive branch
We clashed once in the past over citation style in Callous and unemotional traits, but I have made a best effort here and here to replace primary with secondary sources. Please note that I am a medicinal chemist and not psychologist so there is a limit to what I can do to improve the sourcing of this article. With respect to formatting style, I was trying to find a compromise that was acceptable to everyone. Furthermore I do strongly prefer the concise Diberri/Vancouver citation style and that is why I am trying my best to get it running again. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 19:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- I always enjoy getting olive branches from editors I don't recall ever having "clashed" with :) Looking back, I see that article was one of those student-edited projects where Wikipedia was left with a huge cleanup task, and it looks like you are still on it, over a year later <sigh>. Thank you so much for working to fix Diberri ... I used to know lots of folks in here who would gladly and quickly jump in to help you, but I'm afraid they've all given up or been chased off, and there is no one I can suggest who might help. If you do get it going, I will be thrilled! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)