User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch119

Talk:Causes of autism

Do you believe that continued protection of this talk page is warranted? Talk:Autism was unprotected in September 2018 and the IP user who disrupted it before doesn't seem to have returned. Please request at WP:RFUP if you see fit. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 03:53, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Causes of autism was semi-protected by Laser brain in July 2013 after disruption by 76.252.221.130 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). At the same time, Laser also protected Autism, but removed that in 2018. Laser brain has not edited Wikipedia since December 2021, hence is no longer an admin. The talk page is very quiet, and I see no reason for semi-protection at this point. Perhaps a TPS admin will unprotect it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:03, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Linda Finch

Thanks so much for hanging in with me and putting the time into making the Linda Finch article ready for article space. It has been frustrating and at times overwhelming and I am so glad that we got to the other side.

I don't know about you, but I think Hallelujah is fitting... or perhaps Walking on Sunshine.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:02, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, CaroleHenson for the very nice images and lovely music!! And for the hard and speedy work on a worthy BLP. Best of luck going forward with Linda Finch. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I am glad you liked it.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Just another average morning on Wikipedia

1. A sock going after one of my favorite admins.
2. WP:TWL not functioning just when I need an article.
3. Article assessments broken by some sort of Wikimedia coding error. (That is, following two issues in one morning at WP:VPT.)
4. An admin upsetting FA writers by not understanding WP:RED.
5. An editor disrupting FA Elizabeth II.
6. An editor persisting in claiming that a DC article is clean ... according to Earwig.
7. An editor needing help on a WP:DCGAR, which I don't have time to give.
8. An IP insisting we should have long-ago inserted year-old laypress reporting into a medical article.
9. Overshadowing everything we do here, of course, is the ever-loving WMF: software issues and failure to deal with student editing. With friends like this, who needs enemies?

Anything else to round out my lovely morning? Is this place becoming so broken that we can't hope to get any work done? Today might be a good day to walk away. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Here is a picture of a kitten to brighten your day. Also, for point 2, authentication has been wonky and is a known problem. If you keep clicking on the login button for the Wikipedia Library, you will eventually get logged in. There are one or more tickets already logged for the issue. It also affects Copypatrol. Cheers. -- Whpq (talk) 17:48, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Thx for the cute kitten, Whpq. I'm not going to keep clicking; if I do, I might blow up at someone today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I've done the grand total of two random spot checks. Joseph Dart should be delisted. Linda Finch shouldn't be recreated yet, at least in my opinion. Dealing with this type of cleanup is the most demoralizing thing I've ever done on Wikipedia, and I burned out circa 2011, 2012. Even the thought of rescuing the now-deleted-but-previously-rewritten Peter Rabbit material almost makes me want to throw up. It's very triggering.

I think the best way to go is to stubify whenever possible and move on - quickly. Also, give yourself a break when it gets too frustrating.

The sad truth is that copyvio on Wikipedia is a secret that no one really want to admit. All too often the excuse is that not sticking closely to the source text is original research and it's hard to break that mindset. It's also very hard to teach how to write without taking verbatim phrases from the original source. The main enemy will always be speed - if the writer has the source open and is simultaneously editing the Wikipedia page it's almost impossible not to port verbatim text from source to article. Hang in there! Victoria (tk) 18:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes to all that, but it's the WMF component that puts me over the top, along with the WP:RED issue. You go along thinking "I can do this" ... until you just can't anymore. Thanks for popping in; it helps :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

PS, fortunately, I ordered 20 boxes of Girl Scout cookies this year, and I may just go eat them all now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Brad's post is interesting, and of course he's right. I don't use the mobile app and when we have a dinner table discussion get my laptop. Yeah, it's old fashioned, but it's the only way to see the entire article. Student editing: don't get me started. My students were quite forcefully clear that they had no interest in editing. However, they were interested in critiquing (in the classroom), so we'd look at poorly written articles and compare to well written ones. And they loved watching their teacher (who assessed their work) going through an FA review. In that sense Wikipedia is a brilliant teaching tool. But I never worked with WikiEd for many many reasons. Dunno what to say about the deleted links; the thinking is that if the article is gone it must be non-notable, which isn't the case w/ DC and wasn't the case more than a decade ago with that other person. My advice is to eat the cookies and take a break from copyvio. Victoria (tk) 19:03, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I am well in to the cookies now :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:05, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

You just gotta focus on the fun parts of the project. Maybe you should:

• Participate in our ongoing arbitration case. 25,000 words of evidence is not enough. Please do your part by adding a few thousand more.
• Edit at Cassava Sciences or Simufilam. Always a fun time.
• Write an unreferenced BLP. Referenced BLPs are so passé. We only have 1,814 unreferenced ones, and we've for too long left our inexperienced editors with the burden of creating them.

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:56, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Where have you been all my life ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:57, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I can't remember. I've been getting more and more forgetful lately ... Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:00, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Did I do things when I was young to be proud of when I was old? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:06, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Oof. Feelings. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:16, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers look what just came through my Google alert. That's quite a bit of taxpayer money going to someone's pocket. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:03, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Interesting, but anything SeekingAlpha should be taken with a grain of salt and quickly discarded. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:06, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Speaking of that fun arbcom case... while, yes, the evidence is rather large, the problem is ... rather large. Can I point you at User:Ealdgyth/Holocaust article audits, where I have just begun to document issues. Talk about demoralizing. Ealdgyth (talk) 20:25, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Still worrying the arbs aren't gonna read all that ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:32, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh, those subpages aren't being submitted nor do I expect the arbs to read those. Those are for me to fix up ... I only submit the worst bits as evidence. I just don't want to lose track of the errors/problems so I can ... (eventually) ... fix them. Ealdgyth (talk) 20:34, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I organically ran into an issue at Polish resistance movement in World War II, which included a very prominent line that was misrepresenting its citation. I agree the problem is large. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:54, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Hang in there Sandy! Sometimes it's time to drop the vital cleaning tasks and just only work on what you enjoy. WP:The Core Contest gives me that yearly bit of hope and happiness :). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:05, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Femke; yep, that time has come. Two months of immersion into some of the worst content I've ever seen is enough! I hope I did my part to help our overworked copyvio people, and hope to continue to help, but this case was particularly depressing because it wasn't just copyvio. It was a small handful of editors propping up one really bad editor for a decade and a half, allowing the problem to mushroom to the point of absurdity. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:23, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Some tea for yet another overworked volunteer

For all you do with DCGAR. I look at the work you do, and what shows up at Copyright Problems, and wonder how you keep going to build content and do wonderful things like FAC. For getting the ball rolling on the proposal, for not completely flooding the board and having patience to clean this up slowly but surely, for working with editors to save what you can, to lessen the collateral. Please, if you need a break, do take one. We will persevere, even if we are temporarily one less. This is a soul-sucking area of work that I have no idea how I find enjoyment in it; maybe it's the light at the end of the tunnel, the closing of a case. We'll get there someday. Sennecaster (Chat) 04:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the kindness and encouragement, Sennecaster; it means a lot from a fellow editor who burned out once at CCI :) March 30 was just a particularly nasty day, where one of everything hit, and not all of it related to CCI work. I'll try to keep pitching in as I can, but I should spend time catching up at WP:URFA/2020, which I have seriously neglected for WP:DCGAR.

I admit to being curious about several things, which you, Victoriaearle and others might be able to answer:

1. Was ILT's and Billy Hathorn's copyvio content as bad as this? In every DC article I've looked at, the quality of the content, the policy-breaching, the writing, the lack of reliable sources, the COI-- everything-- was almost as bad as the copyright. Outside of the copyvio, was ILT content better than this? I'm aware of several DYK-bred serial copyright violators, and in those cases, at least the content was more decent, as it was typically a copy of a good source like a New York Times obit.
2. How typical is this quality of GA? DC content is truly horrible in every way, well beyond copyvio. And yet it was pushed up through DYK and GAN on cursory review after review. I have found that to be more demoralizing in this CCI than the actual copyright concerns.

Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Re: burnout; I burnt out in spring last year, and I burned out/got busy in December/January this year.

I have very limited experience with GA, I would ping in someone like Trainsandotherthings. ILT did have very... prolific copying from pages, and all of their GAs were from 2010, but they did write articles that had comprehensible prose and citations that weren't citing your own academia. Billy Hathorn is like Doug Coldwell, except with a lot more socking and AMPOL BLP issues, and also 2011 DYKs. I'd say it's worse because there was so much cruft and unsourced controversial statements about active politicians, not to mention citing his own academia. but in the end, nothing comparable to DC because both of them were just at the turn of taking verifiability, BLP, and copyright policies seriously and enforcing with indefs. DC was under a relatively stable idea of how to handle copyvio and GAs.

TLDR; ILT isn't as bad prose-wise but the sheer amount of book cites means PDEL. Hathorn is just as bad or almost worse than DC in my opinion but that may be because I only PDEL DC articles at copyright problems but I have looked at a ridiculous amount of Hathorn diffs. Sennecaster (Chat) 17:36, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Answering the second. It's atypical of GA in my experience. I'm mostly reviewing science topics which may attract more proficient editors though. There will regularly be some minor text-source integrity problems, as people aren't experts so may misunderstand some details, or more commonly, didn't check pre-existing text sufficiently well. I rarely see copyvio. I think I've quick-failed for copyvio once (my only DC review, avoided it afterwards as it was unpleasant), but maybe one other.. I always do a light source check (say 5-10 sources, maybe a bit less for people who've written a few FAs), and a more thorough one if I see problems or have doubts. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:44, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Femke what has been most shocking/surprising to me has been not the copyvio, but the complete absence of concern at GAN for reliability of sources. It seems that, at minumum, experienced GA reviewers would be scanning for that, and in DC's case, they either aren't, or don't know what an RS is. And DC wrote so much stuff that sent up red flags (ala superlatives, firsts, etc) which makes it doubly surprising that reviewers weren't checking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

My sense from what I've seen is that ILT was different and probably really an edge case. The large number of socks, each with its own persona (some quite abusive), made it difficult to get ahead with the clean up. For example, this user got blocked as user:Piano non troppo, but that SPI got moved to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ItsLassieTime and the Piano non tropo account hasn't been tagged or blocked - see the contribs here. So its still messy. Some of these accounts were reviewers, i.e the two I just mentioned, and until they became abusive were not terrible reviewers.

The accounts I dealt with created children's lit content and on the face of it they were nice articles. But digging in revealed straight plagiarism that in those days was difficult to find without the books in hand (this was before archives.org and not much existed on g-books). Only two articles went to FAC; one passed and has since been totally cleaned and the ILT edits rev-deled. The ILT sock still gets credit for the article as far as I know - haven't checked and don't want to (the ILT episode left scars, in case it's not obvious).

None of the ILT socks had wiki friends or obvious defenders - except maybe the other socks - and if I remember correctly their number of GAs was fairly low. Again, on the face of it the content looks good and is very very difficult to scrub without books in hand.

In retrospect, we were younger then and maybe a little overwhelmed or shocked or something. It would have been better to take down all of the content (creating the LTA page is something I regret too). Basically the method of dealing with the DC content seems to me better, but the circumstances also seem quite different. Victoria (tk) 18:34, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I think I wasn't the only experienced GA reviewer who avoided DC noms after a single experience. Him not playing fair by not reviewing articles himself and not engaging properly with reviewers may have helped him avoid detection, as experienced reviewers are less likely to accept that behaviour. The new GA review requirement to do spot-checks may help, so that new reviewers know to check for sourcing issues (including reliability).

The biggest problem I see is that none of us escalated this. Given we want to make GA a friendly space for newer editors, there is reluctance to keeping track of failed GAs, or other metrics that can raise alarm. The FA process has the coordinators, and this may be a good argument to get them for GAs too, even though I'm always wary of extra bureaucracy. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:55, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Femke, it's not only that no one escalated it; it's that there was a very small group of defenders and supporters who allowed it to continue for a decade. GAN needs coords. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Much like with FAs, there are lots of old GAs (far more, since GA is much easier to achieve than FA) and some are downright awful. Trying to reassess them all would be a massive undertaking, right now we're only reassessing a very small percentage. Until Coldwell it wasn't common for any spotchecks to be included in GA reviews, so I can't say for certain if many GAs contain copyvio. That said, I agree with Femke that this isn't really representative of the average GA's level of quality.

GAN coords would probably be a tough sell, there would be opposition to adding bureaucracy and the volume of GANs far exceeds that of FACs - you'd need a large number of coordinators if the goal is to have someone checking every review. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:20, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

To answer the original questions above, I'd probably put Hathorn's "prose" on the DC level, where even the stuff that's not technically copyvio is either very pov, poorly written, or just outright false. A lot of the sources used too were at best questionable as well (a lot of IMDB and historical markers). That combined with the quantity of the "content" added being absolutely massive, yeah that's why p-del was the only option. As for ILT, that one's tougher to crack for the opposite reason. The prose on most of the articles is actually quite good, but most of the sources used are obscure and hard to track which makes reviewing a massive pain (let alone the rampant sockpuppetry). I'm more reluctant to just hack and slash those articles, but when the stuff's already been up for 12+ years I'm not sure what other choice there is. Wizardman 21:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Thx for the feedback, Wizardman. I'm unsure what to tackle next at the DC CCI, because a lot of what is left is based on PD sources, or too hard to tease out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:07, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

What do they say about Sandy Georgia?

Don't worry, ChatGPT seems to have an inbuilt anti-doxing tripwire, but if you query "who is the wikipedia editor SandyGeorgia" you get to read nice accolades about this famed person ;) It seems to have scraped a lot of the back-end of the project, and you have come out as well as have seen so far, with higher praise than even Iridescent or NYB. Ceoil (talk) 17:13, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Ps, I'm using it for "I likes bands X, Y & Z, who else should I listen to", and its basically Spotify x 1000 as it tells you WHY you will like this music. In conclusion, its fun so far. Ceoil (talk) 17:15, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh, my, I was almost afraid to read this thread, lest the old socks and commentary from other banned-per-arbcase editors comments were showing up instead! Please do keep your eyes open; most appreciated :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

yes, I had read the thread above :( This post was intended as a cheer u up. Ceoil (talk) 17:40, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Consider me cheered :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

April songs

my story today

to cheer further --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:51, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• My sons asked asked "who is user:johnbod", and were told:

"User:Johnbod is a Wikipedia user who has been an active editor on the site since 2006. Johnbod is known for their contributions to articles related to art, architecture, and history, and has made significant contributions to the site's coverage of topics related to these fields.

"Johnbod has also been involved in discussions related to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and has served as an administrator on the site since 2007. They are known for their dedication to improving the quality and accuracy of articles on Wikipedia, and for their willingness to collaborate with other editors to achieve this goal.

"It's worth noting that while Wikipedia editors are encouraged to use pseudonyms to protect their privacy and prevent conflicts of interest, their online usernames do not necessarily reflect their real-life identities. Therefore, I cannot provide any personal information about the individual behind the "Johnbod" username."

- all entirely fair & NPOV, except the bolded bit, which is completely false. Johnbod (talk) 04:38, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Hmmm ... where might they have come up with the admin bit. The rest of it sounds almost canned. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:42, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I tried a few names, weirdly enough almost every single one (including Ceoil, Gerda, John etc. etc.) were said to have been admins at one point. When I told the bot Ceoil wasn't ever an admin it said that I was correct but regardless he is a "well-respected editor". Each one also gave the same tidbit about Wikipedia editors not being "publicly known". Aza24 (talk) 05:21, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

ChatGTP does not think I'm an admin, or even active on enwiki. In the AI's alternative world, I have racked up an impressive 33,000 edits on nlwiki however, and started editing while I was still in primary school. Femke (alt) (talk) 07:29, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Femke, it sounds like it can't track your account name changes ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:55, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

ChatGPF question

Sandy and all, as one of Sandy's talk page stalkers, I found the above discussion interesting. I've been experimenting with Chat these days, as it appears other editors have. (To be honest, I put the same query about myself into it, but it wasn't nearly as satisfying.) I've been putting sections of articles that I've worked on into it, paragraph by paragraph, using it as another pair of eyes and as a additional copy editor. Although I haven't followed all of its suggestions, I've found that it's helped tighten up and improve my writing. I wonder if others have been doing the same (or similar) and if it could potentially help with the close paraphrasing issues mentioned above. I also wonder if we should self-disclose using Chat or any other AI as an additional tool on the articles' talk pages.

Sandy, if you think this is an inappropriate place to discuss this, please shut down it down, even if it means deleting this section. I'm curious to hear what you think, though. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:03, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I just wish someone would tell me how to find this place where Ceoil says I'm being talked about. Or maybe not ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:19, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Its not that your being talked about, its that the AI thinks you rock and is positioning you as instrumental in the project's development. Although not a supreme being I have to agree. Ceoil (talk) 22:46, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

That's weird. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:47, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I did it and was successful. I directed it to tell me, like above, "who is the wikipedia editor SandyGeorgia?" It said some really lame things about me, like it couldn't tell me because it needed more context and couldn't tell me anything about myself, although I was probably a WP editor who had interest in the sport of figure skating. Duh! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:57, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

It thinks i'm a hick, which actually I am :)))) Ceoil (talk) 23:54, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

If it thinks you're a hick, then there's no telling what I would be classified, as an American who grew up on a working farm (Dad got rid of the pigs before I came around so "Hog Farm" actually grew up on a crop farm) where we burned all our trash and picked gooseberries out of the ditch until the township took out the bushes with the mower. Hog Farm _Talk 03:46, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

ps Figureskatingfan , its very good for finding sources....vs google which is 6 pages of ads and sponcered content per one useful site. Ceoil (talk) 22:48, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

do keep in mind that ChatGPT will often make up information or fabricate entire sources if it doesn’t know the answer… Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:13, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

It sounds like I am going to have to come up to speed on this (after all these years where I never once figured out what IRC was, where Discord is, or how to tweet) ... what will they come up with next? (Ceoil, what's with the hick? You're starting to sound like you've spent too much time on this side of the pond!). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:35, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. For example, I asked it for sources on the Armenian genocide, and the response wasn't that great. (t · c) buidhe 04:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Some topics require more discernment than others, eg its largely ok for art history where there is less contention and less literature. Not for Armenian genocide. Ceoil (talk) 01:00, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

As an FYI...

I thought you might like to know that you really helped me realize:

• With your suggestions that I shouldn't be going a sentence at a time, but reading and writing from a paragraph or two at a time. I thought my mind could only manage a sentence at time. I am finding it's a better mind exercise to believe I can do more.
• That it really helps to see the sentence I am writing against sentences from the source.

Just an FYI... you were a big help! No need to reply, I know you are swamped. –CaroleHenson (talk) 04:29, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Glad to hear it :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Erie J. Sauder

Can you confirm the revisions that need revdel on Erie J. Sauder. The range given doesn't include DC's original edits to the article. I ran an Earwig check on the last of DC's edits and I only got an 8.3% match (basically one sentence) with the given archive url so TBH I'm struggling to find the copyvio here. Nthep (talk) 16:01, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Ugh, Nthep I am a disaster with using the tool to get the ranges; give me a bit. (And I never know if a RevDel is warranted for one sentence). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Nthep found, this was a very weird one, that may not require revdel-- I don't know. Originally, DC poorly paraphrased the source. Later, Truthanado came along to copyedit, and seems to have inadvertently (while copyediting) introduced the exact wording from the source (probably because that wording was optimal to the poor paraphrase). See the detail at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20210315#Pages 181 through 200. The copyvio was not DC, but it took me a while to sort what had happened, and the revdel might not be warranted (up to you, I am always unclear, but it is practically a copy-paste). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:10, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Ugh indeed. You have far more patience than me in looking through all this DC crap. I'm not surprised this one have driven every one boss-eyed. Anyway it's done now. Nthep (talk) 16:22, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Thx, Nthep; it's things like this that require one to check absolutely everything in DC content (that is, not just check off the diffs at the CCI). It is soul-crushing work, and I'm about overdue for a break :) Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

MMS Request

Hi, would you be able to tend to my mass-message request, as it needs sending out relatively soon. Many many thanks, Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 16:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

No, sorry ... I am not experienced enough with MMS myself to be responding to requests there. I suggest you try another one of the regulars there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Auld Lang Syne

• Hi Sandy! I appear to be back. Sorry to hear about your CCI travails. I dunno, I might take a look and see if I can help a little... Moreover, I currently have Black Monday (1987) in FAC.
• I may even get together with others to try for BF43 again. I feel emotionally recovered. I dunno. We'll see. But it is true that that one is a LOT bigger than Black Monday, and has a LOT more folks a LOT LOT LOT more emotionally invested in it, one way or the other.
• OH After posting this, I just now noticed that my ears should have been burning. I will not respond. Cheers! § Lingzhi (talk) 22:13, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  So, Lingzhi.Renascence here goes.

  I am glad to hear you are "emotionally recovered", even though I'm unsure what that means or refers to. FYI, as some of my closest WikiAssociates and friends know, I am just the opposite of that for family health-related issues, and every day is a new box of chocolates, with me hanging on the best I'm able. That said, I'm all about trying to be kinder to each other, IRL and on Wikipedia, and too old and tired for putting up with bullshit. I am spending most of my time trying to keep my church from going belly up, 'cuz it would be nice for it to be around when I have funeral needs.

  It is quite possible I have mis-remembered, but the last time I heard from you was when you became offended that I objected to very long articles, and said something to me along the lines of I was never to speak to you again. And yet here you are, speaking to me without apology for lashing out at me like that over a content difference. I may appear to be thick-skinned, but that doesn't mean it didn't hurt. So it doesn't sit well that you show up here with no explanation. That's what I meant above about "Ling will be ling". You may be "emotionally recovered" from something, but we're all dealing with daily stuff, and I am not a punching bag. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks for the reply. First, I am terribly sorry to hear that things are not going well in real life. I do mean that. Second, I totally do not remember saying that, but since you say I said it, then I am absolutely 100% certain that I did say it. That's not the kind of thing that you would just imagine or make up. It's far too detailed. It also sounds like something I would say (whether fairly or unfairly) when I was deeply angry. So please accept my sincere apologies for my past immaturity and churlishness, but then do not give a moment's further thought to any further words I may utter. I withdraw all requests, explicit or implied. I forfeit them. Erase them. They never happened. I am not here, and I was not here. I apologize for coming here. And I wish you all the best. § Lingzhi (talk) 14:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you, Lingzhi ... done and forgotten. All the best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Your e-mail

It's only one edit, but I blocked. The colorful username and the same article was enough for me. Are you aware of socking before this on any of the Ludington articles? I'm unfamiliar with the material, only noticed it after I became suspicious of .swig.voids.'s edits to ANI. Regardless, thanks for the e-mail.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Bbb23 follow through on James Ludington edits, also from this week. May need to set up a CU profile. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:21, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

PS, 331dot, Blablubbs, Hog Farm, and Spicy also on it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:22, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Lynn who is ready clearly Ludington-related. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:28, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, I just noticed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/I drink books and know things.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:29, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Great ... and thanks to Hog Farm for dealing with that while I was too tired, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:38, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) There were a number of trollish accounts and IPs disrupting Doug Coldwell's articles around the time that he was blocked at ANI. I linked two of them in my block summary for Ludington Historian, and while I didn't think that there was quite enough evidence to block them as such, I'm pretty sure these accounts are all socks of WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Raxythecat. (I mentioned this to Blablubbs when I asked him to check LH). Both groups tend to use similarly, err, creative usernames, and the IP disruptively editing this Coldwell article was previously blocked as part of that SPI. I'm not sure if any of this really matters but I guess some people like to keep their sock drawers organized. Spicy (talk) 13:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I was quite a few steps behind all of you, and did not realize Hog Farm had submitted the SPI, but my concern is always to not publicly reveal all tells, as that was how I was able to deal with Mattisse socks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:00, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

GA nomination of Charles III

Hello - Charles III has recently been nominated for GA status. You are welcome to review it if you'd like; if you aren't interested or simply don't have the time, that is, of course, completely understandable. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:17, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Am I being too picky?

See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/CBS Building/archive1#Source review. I'm thinking the answer is I'm not being too picky, but given that my entire job in RL is to nitpick things, it's sometimes necessary for me to get assurance that I'm treading the right line between "conducting source reviews" and "auditing ARPA expenditures" Hog Farm _Talk 02:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Read through, think you're doing fine (better than fine-- doing what should be done). I like Epicgenius, find them easy to work with on FACs, and like their work, but I often found their prose and sourcing warranted closer scrutiny, and lament that frequent nominators get waved through all too often. That is, I think you should keep doing what you're doing, and wish we'd see more like it ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Not too picky (t · c) buidhe 17:03, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Had trouble with sources myself, especially articles where many other editors have made contributions. See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/James Madison/archive2#Source review for my version of the picky review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:51, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I think it's a reasonable approach, myself. If a spotcheck turns up a lot of problems, it's reasonable to ask whether the non-spotchecked sources have problems as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: I will join my fellow source reviewers here. You are doing a fine job. Source reviews are especially hard to get right. -- In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 12:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks

In my occasional visits to Wikipedia these days, I get these "notifications" and see the times you expressed your appreciation for the work I did on mathematics and GA. Thank you for this. I am now no longer an admin due to "inactivity", so it means a lot to me when people like you and Gerda remember my contributions. I hope all is well with you, and wish you a Happy Easter. Geometry guy 00:48, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Geometry guy what a wonderful surprise to hear from you after a somber Maundy Thursday and lamb's stew; it is just the bee's knees to know that you are well, and I'm so glad you stopped by. You are most dearly missed! Happy Easter to you and yours! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:53, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I hope your Easter will be amazing as we go into the happier days of the festival. I admire your resilience to survive and do good things in the hive mind that wikipedia has become. Geometry guy 00:47, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Geometry guy we had a glorious Easter; hope you did, too! I suspect you are noticing that some (most?) areas of "the project" aren't working so well :) All the best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:44, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear you had a glorious Easter. Mine was a bit mixed, because my mother is unwell, and this may have contributed to my online mood in my recent comments :)

I am now much more an outside observer of "the project", and I think it is inevitable that it no longer works so well. So much has been done to build articles of a moderately okay standard in most areas, that the drive to improve and grow has diminished. So who now wants to put in the work? Special interest groups I imagine. This, together with a general liberal bias, really undermines NPOV. So articles on contentious topics get unhelpful attention, while articles on obscure topics are left in a barely acceptable state.

I was thinking of going back to my Wikipedia roots and improving some unloved math articles, but my recent experience of Wikipedia processes dampened my enthusiasm. (And I am pretty busy IRL.) Geometry guy 19:09, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

FA nom

Hi @SandyGeorgia. Thanks so much for all your assistance in improving Dietrich v the Queen. You were one of the editors who delisted it in 2021 from FA status and have pinged me as I improved it over the last year. I have now nominated it at FAC and was hoping you would provide me with anymore feedback you may have. Cheers MaxnaCarta (talk) 07:31, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I've glanced in, but a full review will take more time than I have today. @Extraordinary Writ: to look in. But as one example, I am unsure of the accuracy/support in sources for the opening line of the article.

• Dietrich v The Queen is a 1992 High Court of Australia constitutional case which established a de facto requirement for the provision of legal aid to defendants in serious criminal trials.

Didn't it establish only the right to adjournment until legal representation can be obtained? From what I understand from my past read of the case, this opening sentence seems to be an overstatement of what the case determined, and I'm unclear where this is supported in the body of the article.

Also, in the introduction,

• Counsel for Dietrich applied for appeal on one ground; Dietrich's lack of legal representation meant the trial in the County Court of Victoria was miscarried.

I don't know what it means to say a trial was miscarried. There can be a miscarriage of justice, but how is there a miscarriage of a trial? Perhaps I am out of my depth, but these two in the lead suggest that more experienced eyes than mine are needed here. have you pinged WP:LAW to the FAC with a post on the talk page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:14, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I think these are valid points to be fair. I mean, it did more or less establish the defacto rule. But the judges never specifically said that. It’s true, but interpretive and so if I can’t find an appropriate source I’ll need to address that. To the second point, yes the judges did make it clear that without legal representation in a serious matter, the trial risks being miscarried due to a miscarriage of justice. But it may need further review. I’ll address these and try to get the law project involved too. Thanks! MaxnaCarta (talk) 05:20, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Mistrial? (t · c) buidhe 05:41, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Is a mistrial called a miscarriage in Australian English ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:45, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Definitely gonna review this once I’m back at my PC! MaxnaCarta (talk) 06:56, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Changed: :* Counsel for Dietrich applied for appeal on one ground; Dietrich's lack of legal representation meant the trial in the County Court of Victoria was miscarried. to Counsel for Dietrich applied for appeal on one ground; Dietrich's lack of legal representation meant the trial in the County Court of Victoria was quashed and a new trial ordered as is stated below in body with reference. Good pickup. TY!

With regard to Dietrich v The Queen is a 1992 High Court of Australia constitutional case which established a de facto requirement for the provision of legal aid to defendants in serious criminal trials. is changed to Dietrich v The Queen is a 1992 High Court of Australia constitutional case where it was established an accused facing serious criminal charges must be granted an adjournment until appropriate legal representation is provided if they are unrepresented through no fault of their own and proceeding would result in an unfair trial.. MaxnaCarta (talk) 02:46, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Lung cancer update

Woof. A mere six months after starting this FAR project, I'm just about done with a first draft of the content. I know you're a busy woman, but if you – or anyone else watching this page – have a moment to read the text and give comments, it would be immensely appreciated. Non-experts also (particularly!) appreciated. Apologies in advance for the clunky prose. But the bones of the content should be in place, so with your help I think we can polish it up to something respectable. Thanks in advance! I hope you're well. Ajpolino (talk) 00:47, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
@Buidhe, Ealdgyth, and Hog Farm:, even you all would be appreciated here. Though of course I know you're all very busy as well. Ajpolino (talk) 00:47, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

New message from Jo-Jo Eumerus

 You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus § TRAPPIST-1. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:14, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry for messing up the FA close. I thought I was permitted to do it myself. I was mistaken, it seems. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 10:21, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi, X750; I had only corrected the faulty peer review close so it wouldn't foil the bot that processes FACs into {{Article history}}. Wikipedia:Peer review/Mercedes-Benz Vision EQXX/archive1 is a disappointing peer review, and I hope that Spaceeditor123 will become more familiar with FA standards before continuing to do peer reviews. Also, Wikipedia:Peer review/Guidelines gives the instructions for closing a peer review at the section on closing a review.

One thing I'm noticing at FAC is the number of editors who are showing up there without having had prior experience at FAC; I had reviewed hundreds of FACs before I ventured my first nomination. SchroCat addressed the faulty close of the FAC easily so you really have no need to apologize, but for better success in the future you can become more familiar with similar articles at WP:FA and seek out editors who have written featured content on autos. The distance between GA and FA is supposed to be large, and the process to getting there takes a lot of work, although I see the lines are becoming blurred as reviews at FAC are lagging and tending to look more and more like reviews at GAN. User:SandyGeorgia/Achieving excellence through featured content aims at medical content, but nonetheless has many general ideas that may help you proceed. Good luck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:27, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

No need for the apology - we can all make mistakes when we don't understand the various steps in a process we're not used to. Sandy's advice is sound: review some FACs first to get an idea of the process and standards; FAC should always strive to remain streets ahead of GAN - at the level of professionally published work, whenever possible. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought it was just a basic edit review. I'll make sure to take a look at those standards. Spaceeditor123 (talk) 18:24, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your wise words, Sandy & SchroCat, but I do not have what it takes for FAC. Once again, thank you. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 18:54, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

X750 we all started somewhere ... don't be discouraged. I look back at my first FAC reviews and shudder! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:27, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps it was my fault for not elaborating; I'm young. Upstart. I have little patience to wait for peer reviews, waiting for good article reviews (as of writing I still have one waiting for review from November) and whatnot, and I understand this goes against the notion that Wikipedia has no deadlines. I'm fine with that, and as such I accept I will probably never have a FAC. This is not a bad thing, simply the reality, I still enjoy contributing to this place. On the other hand, I do not have the time to invest in bringing up an article to FAC standards, nor do I have the competence required to. As of August this year, I'm moving countries to start tertiary education. SchroCat mentions how FAs are professionally-written (quality-wise). I may have a 98th percentile R&W SAT but that does not equate to good writing skills, at least good enough for FA. Once again, thank you for the kind words but this is beyond my reach for perhaps the next decade until I am financially free & master my writing skills. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 21:46, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

X750 as someone who has been editing for 18 years, I encourage you to "never say never"; your posts here show remarkable maturity and self-awareness, and we may just see an FA from you someday! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:52, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I just looked over the links you provided, and I realize that I didn't check for any of the things on the list, so I'll make sure to start paying more attention and be more careful. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. Spaceeditor123 (talk) 02:10, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Spaceeditor123, I'm glad they were helpful; if you want to come up to speed on FA reviewing, an easier place to start might be reading through WP:FAR ... I read the whole page once a week ... if you "goof" on a review there, it doesn't cost anyone a bronze star, so it can be a good learning place. Hope to see you around! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Wow! Talk:Death of Caylee Anthony

Thanks for your edit there! I didn't even know that template existed—I'd searched for something like it a few times and come up empty. Appreciate it, --Jerome Frank Disciple 17:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

If you need it in the future, you can look in the Tools tab at the top of my talk. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

A belated response and thank you!

I was archiving my usertalk and realized that I never replied to the apology you left on August 30, 2022, regarding the ketamine and major depressive disorder edits. I know this is a late reply, but better late than never! I first want to thank you for the apology, and I also want to let you know that you actually taught me quite a few things about editing, sourcing, and referencing in the process and made me a better editor for it in the end. Thanks again for upholding the standards of Wikipedia and being a kind, humble, and overall great editor and teacher! Wikipedialuva (talk) 23:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedialuva Sorry for the delayed response! I keep meaning to refresh my memory on just what faux pas I had to apologize for, but just haven't had the time. So I'm happy to hear that we seem to have helped each other ! All the best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Brian Halligan

Hi Sandy, I just stumbled across the above article. A SPA has been promoting the subject over a fairly long period of time. I reverted back to before they started editing, but was still surprised that it was a GA. AFAICT, it was promoted to GA back in 2011 by a sock (the assessor) and an inexperienced editor. When it comes to content creation, including GA and FA stuff, I am a nobody, so I thought I'd ask you to take a look at it. If you don't have time or the inclination, I understand.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Bbb23. I see I archived its FAC nomination over a decade ago, and it looks like the shenanigans are long-standing. I don't really understand the GA process at all (even less so after all I saw at WP:DCGAR), but I know just the people who can submit it for re-assessment at GAR. @WP:GAR coordinators: could one of you do whatever needs to be done here? It would also be a good thing for a whole lot of my TPS to watchlist the article for detection of any future COI/socking. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:43, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm encountering so many deadlinks it's hard to evaluate without spending a lot of time finding sources ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

The heavy reliance on primary and non-independent sources, including effective WP:SPS, feel like a good reason to run a GAR. Sandy, are you editing towards a particular end that a GAR would disrupt? CMD (talk) 07:22, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis I am traveling so couldn't do much, but I was mainly trying to locate old articles in archive.org for the purpose of checking for BLP violations ... the business of him having to pay a fine for not revealing info to the board ... that checked out with sources, so that's all I intended to get done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:31, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

No problem. Opened at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Brian Halligan/1. CMD (talk) 12:19, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Thx! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:24, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you both.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks CMD, I did see the ping but I've had limited editing time this week and unfortunately wasn't able to give the article a comprehensive look. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

WikiProject Med Newsletter - Issue 21

Issue 21—June 2023

WikiProject Medicine Newsletter

Hello all. Another irregular edition of the newsletter; pardon the six-month gap. I was inspired to collect this after seeing how much activity there is in the GA space on the medicine front. Please review a GAN if you have time, and help to welcome more medicine editors into the fold:

Recognized content (since January 1!)

Trinidad Arroyo nom. Thebiguglyalien, reviewed by Mike Christie Mycobacterium nom. BluePenguin18, reviewed by Ealdgyth

Nominated for review

Hanhart syndrome nom. Etriusus, under review by Dancing Dollar Persistent stapedial artery nom. X750 Howard Florey nom. Hawkeye7 History of penicillin nom. Hawkeye7 Cataract surgery nom. Pbsouthwood COVID-19 pandemic nom. Ozzie10aaaa, under review by Shibbolethink Mohamed Hamad Satti nom. FuzzyMagma El Hadi Ahmed El Sheikh nom. FuzzyMagma Mansour Ali Haseeb nom. FuzzyMagma Sinus tarsi syndrome for peer review by Pear1020

WP:MED News

• Wikipedia:Good article reassessment is back in business, with a new process and new coordinators. If you see medicine-related GAs that may no longer meet the GA criteria, feel free to nominate them for attention/reassessment (please, not too many at once, lest we get overwhelmed). I'll incorporate them into the listings above.
• Major depressive disorder, Schizophrenia, and Dengue fever are featured articles that need updating. Feel free to chime in at the talk pages or WT:MED if you have the time/bandwidth to help update. They'll likely go to featured article review for more feedback in the near(ish) future (probably in the order listed).

Newsletter ideas, comments, and criticisms welcome here.

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

Ajpolino (talk) 04:10, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

"Bludgeoning" at ANI

I think what you may have picked up on is that I was, for good reason, worried JFD would bludgeon that thread (as they have been warned about by Admins and others). So I told them (when they asked) on my talk that they probably shouldn't keep replying. I then felt some sort of quasi-responsibility to directly rebuff false claims or other accusations that I actually had diffs for, as a third party person who was still involved. And otherwise, I tried not respond to comments that weren't direct replies to me.

Then, when enough editors had participated and voiced substantial concerns about the user, I proposed a sanction and listed diffs with quotes. I understand why you are concerned about my participation since the OP didn't make the best possible case, and instead I proposed a sanction on their behalf. But calling it BLUDGEONing is not really founded in the facts from what I can ascertain. I am actually very interested in adjusting my participation in the future if you think what I did there counts as BLUDGEON. What would you have done differently? Thanks — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I've generally found Floquenbeam to be a sensible editor when it comes to ANI; I think they summed it up. When approaching ANI, make sure you have truly damning diffs, or don't engage at all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

...So.... Why does TRM claim you drove him off Wikipedia?

I'm sure it's nonsense on his part, but I am a bit curious... why does TRM claim you drove him off the project?? -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 05:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't know; everything I know was linked on the ANI; there was plenty of speculation, but we don't seem to have hit on anything concrete. I also don't much care anymore; I was always hoping Barkeep49's essay would have an effect. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

help with book

Hello, I plan on bringing banana slug to FAC sometime this year. I was wondering if this book is reliable enough. It is only 32 pages and I can't tell if the author is an expert but it has been cited in peer-reviewed articles. LittleJerry (talk) 22:34, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Since you can't tell on the author, I wonder if Ealdgyth could shed any light, for example, on the publisher. Also, it's 1988. That it has been cited in peer-reviewed articles is good; are you planning to use it for anything controversial? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:22, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I was just going to use it for basic information. It's cited in the article now. LittleJerry (talk) 11:41, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Responding here, since a similar message was left on my talk page; just now have a chance to answer. My question would be what kind of journal articles is this cited in, and how are they citing it? I'll use the test of citing in other sources as a bar for RS myself, but I don't necessarily consider that a test for the FA standard of high-quality RS. One example would be an American Civil War book I own named "Bitter Ground" - it's widely cited in books on the war in Missouri, but I wouldn't consider it a FA-suitable source because chunks of the book border on being anti-Kansas polemics. It's a hard thing to say without knowing more about the publisher or the literature on that slug. Hog Farm _Talk 03:51, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, that book is cited in several other sources but doesn't appear to be a high-impact publication. The author does not have any other books to her name. If this is reliable it may be an OK source but not really a high-quality source. That said, what do you want to use it for? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:41, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Just basic information. It can be difficult to get that in journal articles. LittleJerry (talk) 11:42, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Query about issue with grammar in Robin Williams

Although I haven't been able to extricate myself from the mess of attacks at every word I say at ANI—which I should have predicted, I suppose, and might have if I were a regular there—I did notice some friendly advice to the subject of my original post, which I looked through. I noticed you mentioned dissatisfaction with the way that the topic of suicide was addressed in Robin Williams—looking over the article, I would guess where it's mentioned in the lead. I'm not sure whether I can come up with an ideal way to word it, but I'd like to offer to help, by means of thanking you for a generally supportive response to the issue.

If the issue is that it says that he "died by suicide" at his home, then my first thought—on rereading the rest of the article to remember the circumstances—would be "hanged himself", which is less harsh (and less vague) than "killed himself", less clinical or police-reporty than "committed suicide", and less nonsensical than "died by suicide". I'm not sure that it's enough of an improvement to be worth opening a can of worms over the present wording, however. "Took his own life" is a handy phrase, but a bit vague given that the details are known, and discussed, in the article. Perhaps "died from self-induced asphyxia"? Or is that too roundabout?

Anyway, sorry if I'm one of the editors giving you headaches at ANI. It certainly wasn't my intention to type one wall of text after another—if people would stop making me feel the need to defend myself at every turn I would certainly have stopped responding unless asked (although I do keep getting pinged in this discussion). But sorry all the same. Let me know if I can help! P Aculeius (talk) 20:48, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi, User:P Aculeius; thanks for stopping by. That was a painful situation all round, and it doesn't appear to me that anyone ever thought it would get to where it went. I was sorry to see how difficult it became, it involved a plethora of issues (FAIT being as much a concern to many as the language) and I would have reached out to you myself as the thread dragged on, but felt that I had already said more than my share on that thread. As Damien said, there were a lot of different triggering factors in that topic, and few of them related to either you or them. And as I know WhatamIdoing perhaps a bit better than you do, from years of sharing space at WP:MED, when she says "stop worrying", she is offering respite, not judgment.

Thanks for offering to help at Williams. I unwatched Robin Williams because that whole thing just got too exhausting, and my interest was related to the FA dementia with Lewy bodies, and not wanting that dispute to spill over and affect its TFA (where in fact, we had no problems with suicide language on mainpage day). And in spite of the inline (hidden) comment on the article, I don't believe consensus was ever found in that discussion (Masem may disagree). But besides the inelegance of the died by suicide wording, the lead does an all-round dreadful job of dealing with his death.

After suffering for many years from depression, paranoia, memory loss and insomnia, Williams died by suicide at his home in Paradise Cay, California on August 11, 2014. He was 63 years old. His autopsy revealed that undiagnosed and severe Lewy body disease had spread widely in his brain.

I can only say I'm glad I unwatched, and am astounded to see how bad the content became. The implication is the suicide was due to psychological issues, when he so clearly had a neurological disease. The paragraph leads with psychology and never mentions the mistaken neurologic diagnosis. The "died by suicide" is an entirely unnecessary construct, and can be avoided by recasting the entire thing to something more reflective of the entire picture. The problem is beyond the words used to describe his suicide; it's the framing around the entire matter. His suicide was about Lewy bodies; the focus on word choices like "committed", "by hanging" et al are a sideshow that needn't even be happening. For contrast, have a look at Lewy body dementias#Notable individuals. There's just no need to make these word choices at all. At Williams, it looks like the lead wants to set up a psychology or neurology contrast for Williams's case, to debunk the idea that his suicide was related to psychology, but by leading with psychology, it leaves that impression anyway. And LBD had "spread widely in his brain" is baby talk. My suggestion is to wait a month or so to let the ANI kerfuffle die down, and then patiently approach the topic anew at the talk page. Something good can come from this :). Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:19, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

In light of where things went this evening I agree—and I'm not sure that I could help in any event, as my thought was that there was an issue with grammar or wording that might easily be solved with an elegant third-party approach—clearly not! The issues sound like they are beyond my ken.

[Edit: on second glance, I think it wouldn't be too hard to reword this paragraph respectfully—but I'll wait for the time being, as suggested. Something along the lines of, "after suffering from depression and insomnia for several years, Williams was found dead at his home in Paradise Cay, California on August 11, 2014, at the age of sixty-three. An autopsy reported his cause of death as suicide by hanging, and determined that he had been experiencing severe Lewy body disease, a neurological condition that had been misdiagnosed as Parkinson's disease." Is this any better? If you want, feel free to use/edit it yourself.]

I didn't realize that WhatamIdoing was female—I think I have misgendered her somewhere as a result—and I take her language on another related page as somewhat threatening. I am still trying to decide on the proper response, beyond a rather feeble effort earlier. One possibility is simply to wash my hands of the matter and try not to reply any further. I am leaning in that direction, on the theory that nothing I can say will make things any better. But thank you all the same for some friendly words—I have been in much need of them today! P Aculeius (talk) 04:40, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

And now things have taken another convoluted turn at ANI, as the matter has now been hit by a troll. Perhaps at this stage, now really best to let it all die? I've known WAID for a long time, and threatening isn't part of the personality :) Try to re-read when you aren't so stressed; you may see the more typical spirit. I understand, after all this, the need for a friendly word, and have to say-- I came out of that thread respecting both of you, and if that can happen at the ANI cesspit, it's a win-win. Give yourself a break for a while :). Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:57, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Oops, forgot to add ... Williams will have to get fixed without me ... I am struggling to keep up already ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:59, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Just as an FYI, but the Robin Williams page was changed after a specific user kept trying to push their preferred language post-RFC (see Talk:Robin Williams/Archive 12) by which point it was too exhaustive to keep explaining the RFC.

Which is why I have similar concerns here is that the initial response to being warned was a "my way or highway" attitude, even considering they lacked knowledge of the RFC. That's simply not how we want anyone to edit, the WP:TE problems that come with believing their edits are for the best. Masem (t) 12:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I could be completely off the mark here, Masem, but my intuition/hunch is that editors who get highly invested in the language surrounding a given issue have had personal experience in the area that makes it very hard for them to see when they may be becoming over-invested and need to back off. If that is the case involving suicide language, I try to retain some empathy. Admittedly, I came to these discussions from a very different place, as my involvement was driven simply from having written dementia with Lewy bodies, so I don't have that same possible strong aversion to any given word choice. I've suggested at WT:MOSMED that we need to start thinking outside the traditional boxes for ways to approach this, as in spite of our best efforts, here we are, same place, three years later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:19, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm glad to see Sandy's rewrite of the that part of the lead at Robin Williams. Masem's comments are untrue, unfair and unhelpful, and no I'm not remotely interested in arguing about it, but it needs said unless someone thinks that's an uncontested description of history. -- Colin°^Talk 17:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

TRAPPIST-1

Greetings, do you think that TRAPPIST-1 is ready for a fresh FAC attempt? Sandbh did copyedit the page but I didn't get comments from Gog the Mild. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:35, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I did not get past the lead, Jo-Jo, which is not at all promising. I am preparing to travel and not sure when I will have enough time to offer suggestions, but I may get some down time during my trip and will try to add suggestions ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:06, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

(Poke, since apparently Gog the Mild is finished with their copyedit) JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 19:52, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Not necessarily a poke for this one, but noting here that I've done some work on one of your FAR nominations. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:42, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Thx, Jo-Jo Eumerus ... trying trying trying to get there ... but I have a funeral that will take most of today. Fingers crossed for tonight ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:06, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

One last poke, since I am not sure whether I'll have time to process suggestions/a FAC after the next few weeks. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:50, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus I don't want to bore you with everything that has been going on in my life, keeping me from having the focus or attention for an article of this nature, but if you can give me 36 more hours, I am probably going to be able to get there (unless something ELSE comes up, sigh). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:23, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks! I've replied to some of your suggestions and implemented others. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:31, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the further comments! I've replied to some at the talk page and asked at the help desk for someone who knows about image placement fixes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:11, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Schizophrenia

It's listed in WP:FARGIVEN and at URFA2020 but has a happy checkmark at your list. What's the status? I was surprised to find a pile of medicine-related articles at GAN so I'm pulling together another newsletter. We're on the biannual publishing plan now. Ajpolino (talk) 22:24, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

My list is really old and should probably be ditched; it was from a time when I was perhaps more hopeful :) I'm unsure which FA to tackle next, since most of them ... aren't. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Ah. Yeah I hear that. We could use some new FA writers. I'm happy to work on some of these things, but I move a bit slow. Anyway, I just started at prostate cancer since I'm already in the cancer mood, and I have some useful sources open. I'm sure I'll need your help there at some point. In the meantime, just holler if you have a task for me. Oh, and heads up for the newsletter. Maybe even tonight. Ajpolino (talk) 03:51, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I have a colorful history with prostate cancer. My husband read misinformation on Wikipedia, I checked who had written the portion that ultimately misled him and told him it was OK because it had a reputable author, and a few years later he had advanced (high grade) prostate cancer that escaped early detection because he and his doctor ignored escalating PSA findings thanks to the US Preventative Task Force clamping down on PSA testing in 2012 (their stance later reversed in 2018, but too late for us, and our articles did not reflect ALL sources-- only USPSTF because WP:MED had some deal going with them). Then when I added accurate updated MEDRS sources to the articles, I was reverted by two now sanctioned editors -- one banned, who then accused me of a COI. It was pretty nasty-- that a knowledgeable medical editor could not get accurate and updated info in to our suite of prostate cancer articles. So I've tried not to look at how bad those articles are-- too painful, although we came through a very difficult few years with now no signs of cancer left.

What do you think about working on cholangiocarcinoma, since it is an FA written by the excellent MastCell? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:08, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

On the other hand, one in six men will have prostate cancer. It would also be grand to restore either Alzheimer's disease or Parkinson's disease, on the number of people woo will encounter these. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:11, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Yikes, sadly that's not altogether surprising. I'm glad to hear things are going well now, but I'm sure the burden was immense. All the more reason to update the article I suppose. To one in six men..., yes I think the topic piqued my interest because it's so common, and prognoses vary so broadly relative to lung cancer (which very often goes poorly). If I can get through prostate cancer quickly, breast cancer is the obvious partner article to work on. But I am digestive tract curious, so maybe I'll take a peak at cholangiocarcinoma – I can't quite explain this, but on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Popular_pages all our most-visited cancer pages are digestive tract cancers: Pancreatic cancer (#40), colorectal cancer (#170), Esophageal cancer (#542)... with lung, prostate, and breast rounding out the top 1000.

To that point (and yours), many of our most-visited pages relate to conditions of the brain (around 1/3 of the top 25). So if that's what the readers want, perhaps I should shuffle over that way... The most recent person to usher an article on a brain-related condition through FAC is – I believe – you. Perhaps you feel the urge to write on the topic again? Ajpolino (talk) 15:33, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

If you look at how common Alzheimer's disease is-- and how much more common it will become with the aging population-- it's a shame we can't keep it in shape. But a huge amount of work is needed, and it took me two years to do dementia with Lewy bodies. Alzheimer's would be harder just because there is so much more research, and I couldn't do it without a lot of help. User:Lukelahood would be key, but they are barely active of late.

On the other hand, if we can entice MastCell back to any of the cancers, that would be a great help, too.

The sad truth is that once we get past the usual suspects (Colin, Spicy and Graham Beards along with lay help from Ceoil, plus you and me), we just don't have enough interest to keep up the FA level WP:MED was once known for. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, without new blood it's hard to imagine the current crew can do more than slow the declining number of medicine FAs. I haven't put the time into editor recruitment/retention/training that I should since it's such low-yield and often thankless work. Instead I keep hoping maybe Vaticidalprophet will return to the genetic disorders; or perhaps Velayinosu to the viral diseases. Barring that we just wait and hope Spicy loses interest in SPI, or that TAOT's "other things" wanders far beyond trains ;)

... I suppose I'd better put a bit more time into med editor retention... If you (or anyone else watching this page) has an idea of how to go about that, I'd be happy to hear it. Ajpolino (talk) 19:21, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Medical topics are way outside my areas of competence, unfortunately. I do want to work on some of our civil engineering articles, as that's my day job and our coverage of civil engineering topics is poor. As much as I like to learn new things, I have my hands full trying to improve train articles and potentially working on engineering articles as well, plus working full-time of course. Our biggest problem is we just don't have enough competent editors to go around... and nowadays it's very difficult to get reviewers at FAC for anything besides MILHIST. That said, if any of you bring medical articles to FAC I'd be happy to review. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

That is encouraging news, TAOT; one thing that really turned me off about FAC lately was the selfishness. THere I was with more than 15 years of willingness to review anything and everthing of any type that appeared at FAC, no matter how boring or how little I knew of the topic (there is always something you can contribute), and yet when I showed at FAC with DLB, I had to bring my own reviewers. I realized how many editors are only there for the ego and the bling, while MED editors are tying to put forward useful and helpful information that matters to people's real lives and health-- and yet I had to beg for reviews in spite of the years I gave. If I can review hurricanes, trains, milhist, art, architecture, geology, you name it .. you'd think someone could review for me without me having to beg (and be turned down). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:36, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I wish finding reviewers was our biggest problem. But currently we're not getting a whole lot of articles to the FAC starting line. Personally I'll be banking TAOT's offer for the grossest medical articles. Just gotta find out if he's more a worms guy or an eyes guy... Ajpolino (talk) 20:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I am happy to write all about war crimes and genocide but I draw the line at worms or ulcers. (t · c) buidhe 21:11, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Okay, now some exceptions apply. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Ping me if there's anything medical that needs a layman's perspective for a review, but I'd be worse than useless at trying to write medical content. Stuff don't gross me out much; I was a farm kid. Also, TAOT, if there's anything that needs a review, please ping me and I'll try to get to it, although my work schedule for June/July just got released, and I'm traveling almost every single weekday in both months (the special time of year where I live off of tea and Casey's pizza) so there's no clue when I'll actually be able to get to things. Hog Farm _Talk 21:49, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Casey's pizza! For the love of everything good and holy, knock that off, that stuff'll kill 'ya! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I won't be back at FAC for a month at least, kind of burned out after how long my last one took. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

(←) Popping in quickly, I am always free to try to offer whatever help I can. At the moment, stuff I'm working on is already headed to dispute resolution after like 3 edits (literally). But please feel free to ping me at any time if you need anything. later.. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 12:10, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Talk page clutter

• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 June 2#Template:Annual readership SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:10, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Sigh ...

Wikipedia:Contributor_copyright_investigations#Marium_(ILAE-WiR) - the WiR standards are clearly not very high. You'd think they'd do better for medical stuff, but it's a wreck. Hog Farm _Talk 14:48, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Seeing more and more poor medical editing; frustrating when it appears to be endorsed by some sort of "official" Wikipedia <something>. Colin may be positioned to clean up some of those, as he speaks epilepsy and has better journal access than I do. Thanks for the alert, HF. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

This might be one of the worst medical content edits I've seen in awhile. Hog Farm _Talk 15:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

wonderful ... and we're about to lose at ANI one of the editors who held the line on such. I don't know who will pick up that work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I haven't edited or watchlisted epilepsy articles (other than the one I wrote) after being made very aware by the then members of WP:MED that I wasn't welcome. So now they not only have garbled prose but copyvios all over them. Great. I am sad though that the attempt to involve ILAE doesn't seem to have worked well.

I am wondering, though, what Hog Farm's complaint about that edit to Frontal lobe epilepsy is that makes it the worst they've seen in a while. Yes there's a copy/paste copyvio. Yes a set of bullet points in a section don't inform the reader very much about what these things might do for someone. The Drugs.com source is a mixed bag, as it seems to licence material from all sorts of places. This page seems to be from "Mayo Clinic Disease Reference". There isn't a lot wrong with what that source actually said, in the relevant section, just that the copy/paste of the bullet points misses out the context of what those points are. It's a crap edit, but "one of the worst"? -- Colin°^Talk 16:56, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Colin, my concern was seeing a user with obvious CIR issues listing homeopathy (which I'm under the impression is generally considered pseudoscience), acupuncture (which I've always heard is quack-ish), and "mind-body techniques" in a section almost on the same par with stuff like Oxcarbazepine. With that said, I'm a hick who doesn't know anything to speak of about medicine and has a moderate distrust of doctors after multiple bad experiences with an incompetent rural hospital several years ago, so maybe it's not as bad of an edit as I thought it was. Hog Farm _Talk 19:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

The thing the edit misses out, but the source includes, is that the bullet list is just a list of "complementary and alternative medicine" that "some people with common neurological conditions, including seizures, turn to". That in itself doesn't endorse them. The source then goes on to comment on the lack of evidence of efficacy and possible risk of harm. I agree with you about the homeopathy and acupuncture. The "mind-body" stuff includes a whole bag of tricks, some dubious but others like CBT very evidence-based and mainstream, and everyone seems to be banging on about mindfulness these days. But not to treat seizures. More for treating the associated psychological problems someone with epilepsy might have. I did once attend a talk where there was a trial of aromatherapy for patients who got an aura before their seizure, to see if any herbal smells might help interrupt to progression to a full seizure. I don't know if that went anywhere useful.

I was actually more shocked at the Surgery section that followed it. Again they had copy/pasted some bullet points, but missed some out and failed to explain what those bullet points actually meant. So when I read "Responding to a seizure" as a surgical technique I thought, wow, some people do brain surgery the moment someone has a seizure, that's brave. But it turns out it is some experimental device that you implant and it reacts when it senses a seizure. -- Colin°^Talk 20:25, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Why not?

It will be an absolute fracas! And we will not forget the day/week for a long time. What say we go ahead? Lourdes 06:01, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Lourdes; not a chance :) Besides the long list of reasons I have had for more than a decade for not wanting to be an admin, the circumstances of my life right now are such that I can barely keep up with the parts of Wikipedia I like, and the friends I enjoy here; I'm mostly reduced to gnoming and maintenance-like, brainless work of late, as my free time has become erratic and sporadic. I don't foresee that situation changing in the near future. A "fracas" is the opposite of what I seek in life right now. Nice to see you, and thanks for inquiring. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:11, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Sandy. And thank you for the lovely links (they're amazing). I adore Cohen... Listen, let me know when you change your mind. How can you not experience the 7 absolutely raving mad days that you will never forget? No, no, I understand your stand -- don't get me wrong; it's just that if you were to be at the RfA, I would want to be there as a nom as that, in my opinion, would be the most commented RfAs in a long, long time. Till then, then, see you around Sandy, Lourdes 10:22, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks

The GA is also non-trivial, and a fine example of what Wikipedia content should be.

Hey Sandy. Just wanted to say thank you for this very nice compliment at my RFA. I am still learning about content, and didn't know how good or bad my GA was relative to others, so to hear from an amazing content creator like yourself that it's "a fine example of what Wikipedia content should be" is a really nice compliment. I appreciate it :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Novem Linguae and congratulations on surviving RFA! Once again, my apologies for not getting there sooner.

While I have you here, I thought to ping FormalDude (the GA reviewer) to make them aware of this correction to the lead (MOS:WAW, as WP:WIAGA says GA leads should comply with MOS).

Some ideas on how to further improve the article: work in more of the Further reading sources, and lower the HOW TO feeling of the Infiltration section. And there may still be a few MOS:BADITALICS here and there. Kudos for taking on such a technical topic!

Good luck going forward with the tools!! Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:57, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @SandyGeorgia, good to know. ––FormalDude (talk) 20:50, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, I think you've misread the GA criteria SandyGeorgia: the article must comply with the MOS guideline for lead sections, not the entirety of the MOS in the leads. Still, an improvement is an improvement! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:56, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah ha ... thx ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Tokyo Mirage Sessions ♯FE

Hey Sandy! Long time since we've talked. I hope your back is better than when I last heard about it.

I've noticed that after the archived nomination of the article above, you placed {{GAR request}} at the top of the page. Is there something you see in the article that calls for a reassessment or have you done this out of courtesy? Panini! • 🥪 17:05, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Panini! Hi there ! Good to hear from you. Only a courtesy, in case issues have been introduced. If you see nothing of concern, do not hesitate to remove my request. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:27, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Thomas Hall (inventor)

Why is this G8 exempt? There's nothing useful on that talk page. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:22, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Headbomb I believe it was the GA people who (mostly) argued that all of the WP:DCGAR talk pages should be retained because of the unique DYK and GAN history. Also, most of the articles were deleted for copyvio but are notable and could be recreated, so the DYK and GA history may be useful. If you need more detail than that, I'll have to dig around to find the many places where those discussions occurred. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:34, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

south of heaven

SandyGeorgia, i am sorry to bring this up with you, but i am concerned about the quality of one of the featured articles scheduled to appear on the main page in about a week. i think there may be some issues with close paraphrasing, and thought it would be appropriate to raise this issue with you, as i know that you have been involved with far and urfa, and that you have dealt with a featured article with copyright issues before while it was featured on the main page.

while copyediting the blurb and reviewing the sources cited by the article, i noticed that the blurb sounded suspiciously similar to this paragraph that was published on slayer's official web site. digging a little deeper, i found more similarities in the article that i would consider problematic, such as the following.

article:	Two songs taken from the album ("Mandatory Suicide" and "South of Heaven") have become near constant fixtures in the band's live setlist
source:	two songs from the album ("Mandatory Suicide" and "South of Heaven") have become almost permanent additions to the band's live setlist

i also noticed that this article was promoted to featured article status in 2007. although i understand that our standards regarding what constitutes close paraphrasing were fairly lax at the time compared to our standards today, i am assuming that our current standards apply for articles scheduled to be featured on the main page. note that my copyedit of the blurb has left the wording largely untouched, as i do not feel that it would be appropriate for me to substantially reword the blurb unilaterally simply to alleviate my personal concerns.

if you feel that the issues in the article are not serious enough to be actionable, then please let me know, and i will apologize for wasting your time. alternatively, if there is a more appropriate place for me to raise this concern, i can shift the discussion to there instead. thanks in advance. dying (talk) 00:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi, dying; I am having a look now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:51, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

dying I've had a close look now and am going to move this thread to Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/July 2023, and ping in some people there who a) might be able to help clean up, or b) make decisions about whether to swap out the TFA. Give me a moment to summarize over there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:08, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I need some help

Sorry to maybe bother you about this but I need some advice. You weighed in so helpfully at various places on Bath School disaster during its run up to my taking it to FA and, well, I have run into some editing from a newer editor on the article and I need advice on how to proceed. I am not soliciting outside calvary to come to my aid, I just don't know what to do and would appreciate your insight. I reverted their edits that changed the article's referencing style and stated in my edit summary that the other editor open a discussion on the talk page and well...it doesn't seem to be going very well at Talk:Bath School disaster#My edit... I obviously do care greatly about the subject but I am tired about the pejorative-tone/battleground/RightWrong mentality that can easily overcome editing around here. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 15:42, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Tone

I really think you're starting to comment on me as a person, not just disagreeing a lot, but actually getting personal. "The wrong question is being asked"[1] and then a lecture about what the criteria says comes off as very condescending. In my mind, I didn't try skew the question and I had no intention of starting arguments against other people's experiences.

Thoughts? Peter ^Isotalo 22:50, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

My answers are terser than typical today (they can be pretty terse even in the bst of times), as I finally had one full night's sleep last night, after my dog's near-death experience while I was in the woods and 90 miles from the nearest vet. So I am sorry for being even more terse than usual, and sorry if I came across as personalizing.

On the other hand. If you ask, "Is there a 60KB prose limit for FAs", there is only one obvious answer (no), which can be seen by reading the criteria page you were posting on. The length requirement (No. 4) relates to use of summary style, and yes, FAs are supposed to use it; I might not be able to say that in any way that sounds less condescending even if/when I don't think my dog is dying :) But I promise to try harder on a better day. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I am terribly sorry to hear about your furry companion. I hope they'll recover post haste! I appreciate you sharing your distress about that and I'll keep it in mind. Some days are just worse than others...

I honestly am a bit unsure about how the FAC process works in regards to WP:SIZE, at least the way I've always understood the guideline. I find the question to be relevant in the light of what we're discussing in the guideline talk. Please don't take it as a veiled rebuke or anything. If the answer is "no", then it certainly doesn't hurt to have it clarified in talk (and to have it in the archives for later). Peter ^Isotalo 01:03, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Peter Isotalo As someone with a decent amount of experience at FAC and FAR I would explain it differently. Most writers who come with a long prospective FA have inserted excess detail or aren't using summary style or concise wording. If they do this, the length will typically fall under 10k. (I did Armenian genocide in only 7,000 words). Often someone will say that the topic is too broad to cover that concisely, but I would respond in saying that a broad topic simply requires greater effort to prune out information that belongs in sub-articles. Keeping it short makes it more likely that readers will find the information that they're looking for and get the key points of a topic. (t · c) buidhe 01:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Peter, thanks for the doggie thoughts :).

If I see someone oppose on size alone at FAC or FAR, I remind them they need to give concrete examples of failure to summarize, or verbosity, or off-topic content ... and I always do that. I can say that I don't believe I've ever supported an FA over 12,000 words (if memory serves, and it may not), simply because I've never seen one that didn't suffer from the aforementioned.

But I have some ideas about how to get at what you're trying to do on the size talk page ... I'm just too tired to type them up ... it basically amounts to explaining not to do all the things student editors typically do, when they chunk up an article with content that belongs in a sub-article. We need to be explaining why it creates a maintenance problem to have content at a higher level, rather than building blocks from the bottom up ... add the detail at the sub-article ... where it only has to be maintained in one place, and from there, can be wikilinked to all the other places ... is there another page where that is already explained ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:SUMMARY covers some of that. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:03, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Didn't intent to start separate discussions about size and all here. Noting the pointers, though.

What gave me a kick in the butt to start discussion at WP:SIZE was recent discussion at talk:galley if you want some context. The discussion there made me think of all the previous instances of similar discussions and I think we really are at risk at getting stuck on metrics that might not matter. Or at least not for the right reasons. Peter ^Isotalo 09:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Peter Isotalo I've now read over the section you're complaining about, & can't see any "actually getting personal" by Sandy at all. Your own edits, however, have always tended to verge on rudeness, and recently seem to be getting worse. Johnbod (talk) 04:19, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

If that's how you feel, you're welcome to take it to my talkpage and help me understand the error of my ways. Peter ^Isotalo 09:49, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

FA reviewers

Please review Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/TRAPPIST-1/archive3 if you have time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:31, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus - I don't think I can look at this before Tuesday or Wednesday, but if it still needs reviewing attention then please let me know. It would likely take several days for me to get through it. Hog Farm _Talk 22:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

ANI query

Hi Sandy. I'm not really familiar with ANI, and to be honest don't really want to get much more involved with it in the future, it seems like a very stressful place! Hats off to anyone who volunteers in good faith to comment on things they weren't previously involved with. Anyway, this may be a silly question, but ... when do these things generally close? Can we ask an admin to close the discussion now? I ask as I feel like the only purpose it serves staying open is to potentially attract more trolls. I feel like we've reached as much of a conclusion as is possible. The original nominator, who (by word-count at least) has received more criticism than myself (and an equal number of TROUTS), refuses to accept any constructive feedback. That's fine; my point being I think anyone else engaging with him at the ANI will just be wasting their time. I've long agreed to stop (which was his only goal anyway), and there's a consensus (including from him) that blindly mass-reverting will just make a bigger problem. Damien Linnane (talk) 05:56, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I just came back here looking to see if there was a response yet. When I first posted I just clicked the 'New section' point up the top, as your talk page is quite long. I didn't realise you were already talking with the original nominator of the ANI. Quite frankly, while I think everything I wrote above is a fair summary of the events, for the record, I didn't post that comment to provoke anyone, as I simply didn't think they'd see it. I really hope it doesn't start any more drama; that's the last thing either of us need. Damien Linnane (talk) 07:29, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Damien Linnane not ignoring you, just struggling to keep up ... I have a funeral all day ... give me a moment more to get through my watchlist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:02, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

OK, finally reached the bottom of my talk page. I have several thoughts on the progression of the ANI thread. First, my knee-jerk did not help matters; mea culpa. The key at ANI is to focus on more light than heat, and recognize those who do that, ignore those who don't (the latter being the majority). Second, regarding those who add more heat than light, and typical functioning at ANI, notice the SPA/SPI section that went (expeditiously) exactly as I told you it would. And yet three users ignored the best ignored part of my post (Rockstone and Nythar and Callmemirela). I hope they understand to back off and let admins handle it when similar occurs; don't feed the troll. Third, I am heading out to a funeral, all day, and just lost the rest of my morning to an hour-long emergency phone call (it happens that my real life is not being kind right now). I will place a suggestion to close on the ANI although I fear it may not be carefully enough worded as I am now pressed for time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:34, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear real life is stressful for you at the moment; my thoughts are with you. Please take your time.

While I do agree with not feeding the troll in general, it did warm my heart a bit to see people who otherwise disagreed coming together against a common problem. The irony wasn't wasted on me that a troll helped us find some common ground. Damien Linnane (talk) 23:50, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Well something else positive came out of the ANI. I chipped away at it over about a week (and nobody complained about the changes either, yet anyway), but I'm sure you'll be pleased to see this. The remaining mentions are mostly direct quotes, or where the historical context seemed to make rewording too awkward. Damien Linnane (talk) 12:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

German Neuroonkologie to Español Neurooncología

User Linuxmanía has deleted about 96% of my started Spanish article in Neurooncología. Is it possible for you to normalize the article again, as it looked like on May 26, 2022, 08:40 a.m., for example? Best regards, Wname1 (talk) 17:53, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

You haven't provided a link, but considering that your additions at en.wiki were also removed, I'm not sure it will be worth the considerable effort it would take for me to examine German and Spanish-language sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Friday morning thoughts...

I have been thinking about their editing pattern and their combativeness (especially regarding that one article) and their incredible knowledge of WP-ing (how does someone who's supposedly only been around for a few months know so much about WP practices and coding etc) and wanted to ask you...did you ever think they might be a sock of a blocked user? I sure did (and still do lol). But just having some suspicion is not enough to open up a SPI or to get a CheckUser Request filled... oh well, just some Friday morning thoughts. Shearonink (talk) 14:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

It looks likely, but I just haven't had time to think about it, particularly wrt Michigan and WP:DCGAR, where we ended up with more than one disgruntled Michigan editor. The name of one of them escapes me, but it may come back to me if my IRL stuff settles down. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Hope your RL is getting better, no rush. Ah yeah...makes sense about the DCGAR stuff - they sure seemed to have a bee in their bonnet about something. I did a little bit of sleuthing for editors who had edited the article in common with somewhat the same issues and only came up with one anon who had edited refs into a Template style - but probably just a coincidence. Have a grrrrreat weekend, Shearonink (talk) 16:57, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I spent what small amount of time I could looking in to a few, and could not come up with anything substantial ... Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Can I rope you in for...

...a pre-FAC review on Incapillo? It's my next project after TRAPPIST-1 but also one of my older articles, a recent rewrite notwithstanding. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:58, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Jo-Jo, got it watchlisted, but you know how long things are taking me lately. I have an extremely busy week, but will get there as soon as I can. Don't hesitate to poke me if I forget ... that's how things are going. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Bumping. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I could but you never ask or notify me. Volcanoguy 05:20, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Jo-Jo, I'm hoping to have some time this weekend ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:16, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Another bump. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:16, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I know, I know <sigh> ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

On something you said at WT:TFA

Can you give a few examples of the leads/blurbs dying has copyedited which you were talking about in that discussion? Hope there weren't many I wrote or reviewed in there. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I am swamped IRL through Saturday, can try to look then, but I'm fairly certain that, even if I can find the old examples of concern, they didn't involve you. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

AirshipJungleman29 sorry for the delay. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sawmill Fire (2017)/archive1 is an article whose lead and blurb got clobbered at WP:ERRORS, suggesting that the lead could have benefited from closer scrutiny. My concern is that as the overall FA process has become "decentralized" (with FAC, FAR and TFA operating mostly separate), we forget that blurbs have to be crafted from leads, and leads should be reviewed with that -- along with everything else -- in mind. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Left-wing terrorism

Hi, I've listed Left-Wing terrorism in Articles for Deletion. You were involved previously when it was discussed and you may be interested. AlanS^talk 09:15, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Wow, I opined in a 2006 AFD, and both articles (right- and left-wing) are still there and still POV as all heck. Why bother. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:18, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Clapton and Pavarotti

Immediate cause to click, thanks! Had no idea this existed :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 01:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Glad you found it; although it's great at any time, I'm usually crying when I'm watching it :( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Your vote at RfA

Where are those nerdy editors who keep RfA stats to tell us whether your vote is the longest ever written or #2 or whatever? Of course, I can't say it's an example of WP:TLDR because I read the whole thing. And nicely written, too, which is unsurprising. Hope all is well.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:37, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Nobody ever claimed that brevity was the soul of my wit :) I know it's long, but the gist is that all the different concerns reflect a pattern that adds up to ... something ... that is aggravated by the approach taken to GAN and RFA. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:54, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Being witless, I can be as brief or as long-winded as I like! --Bbb23 (talk) 22:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Citation templates and autism articles

Hi Sandy, quick question: Could you please explain what you mean by this comment? Wikipedia auto-generates these citation templates, I'm never editing them manually. Thanks!--TempusTacet (talk) 18:00, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Hang on ... I have to dig around to find the places to explain it to you ... I'll be back :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:01, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

OK, it's hard to figure out how to explain it, as much of the pages about the two citation styles on Wikipedia are written by technical people and aren't entirely digestible. But, there are two basic styles, upon which all the templates depend ... CS1 and CS2. (And I don't know which is which, but see Template:Citation for a starting place.) The general gist is:

• Almost all medical content uses cite journal, cite web, cite book etc (and almost none use the citation template), and
• Almost all high-level medical content uses cite journal templates generated by plugging a PMID into this tool, and
• If you edit an article that uses cite templates, or the Diberri tool, stick to that style, per WP:CITEVAR

One reason I added that edit summary is that because I am not well versed with {{citation}}, it often takes me three edits to get the cite book or cite journal template converted correctly. In this case, I had deleted Murray, thinking it was already in the article, when I saw it was a different Murray, so when adding it back, I wanted to also use the same style as the rest of the article.

Nikkimaria knows more about all of this than I do; which lousy auto-generate tool is giving you that stuff ? I always use Diberri, so am not familiar with those ... but {{citation}} is not commonly used on most medical articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:10, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm using the WYSIWYG editor ("visual editing") and there's a "cite" button that generates references. I've already learned a number of tweaks that are expected (eg removing the leading "PMC" in the PMC ID field, deleting the ISSN for journals) but I don't know how to control which template gets used. I also just copy references between articles so I don't have to do all the manual tweaking again and again, eg, I always copy the DSM-5-TR reference or the Encyclopedia of ASD reference when I need them, instead of generating them from scratch. (I wonder why Wikipedia doesn't properly auto-generate the citations?)

While I'm here and you seem to be on a "let's survey what's here and clean up the biggest issues" journey through the autism articles as well, may I direct your attention to Violence and autism? The discussion on the talk page has stalled and I believe that you might be able to shift the discussion in either direction.--TempusTacet (talk) 18:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I wonder why Wikipedia doesn't properly auto-generate the citations? Can of worms, much agida :) Don't get either Nikkimaria or me started on the topic of citation issues on Wikipedia :) :) I don't use the (really crappy) visual editor, so am unable to tell you if you can tweak a setting there to get cite templates. Since I mostly work on Featured articles, which must have a consistent citation style, I get buggy when style changes (or when I have an edit conflict, as you may have noticed a few days ago ... which reminds me that I forgot to apologize to you for flipping out after losing content in an edit conflict, so my sincere apologies now!)

I will add violence and autism to the list, but (sigh) I am so swamped that I am only keeping up with what hits my watchlist as it hits, and every time you link to Fred Volkmar or any other autism-related article I created, I get pinged ... and then get distracted to fix what I see before I forget ... and then have less time to spend elsewhere ... and so it goes! I have guests arriving for the rest of the day, and full-day meeting tomorrow, but having that link on my page will help me remind me. Thanks for the helpful info and cleanup work you have been doing; so many of us just gave up after Eubulides left, which was before DSM-5, and now the catch-up work is so daunting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:27, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

PS, TempusTacet, I should warn you about what it's like to edit after me :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:32, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Sandy, if you don't want to get the pings for linking to a specific article you created anymore, I think there's a way to silence them on an article-by-article basis. Hog Farm _Talk 18:37, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I believe there is, and I've disabled some in the past, but in this case, I do want to get them. Volkmar is central to a lot of my Wiki-work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I can remove the Volkmar link from the reference to keep you focused ;) but it's my go-to reference if I need a first solid source to cite.

As you've probably noticed, I'm also cleaning things up and would actually have made some of the same redactions in the monotropism article as you have, I'm just way slower and going about it in a different order. I first fix up all references and, if possible, review them to understand the state of the content and then start removing or tagging things.

If you're interested in doing a more systematic review of the state of affairs of autism articles, I'd be up for it. Recently, quite some content has been split from Autism spectrum, leaving empty sections, and there seems to be a lot of confusion among editors about the status of Asperger's syndrome and how to distinguish pre-DSM-5 ASD (as in: the group of autism diagnoses in the PDD category) and the DSM-5 ASD (as in: the unified diagnosis) when writing about autism. Also, as is the case elsewhere on the internet, there is a strong bias towards the perspective of verbal autistic adults without marked cognitive difficulties. Plus quite a bit of self-promotion and bogus like autism spectrum in animals.

Have fun with your guests.--TempusTacet (talk) 18:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Ah, it helps to know your work style (which is better than my fire-fighting as I see it when I see it so I won't forget it and have to come back to it :). I do want to clean up the suite, but can make no promises until/unless multiple issues zapping my real-life time settle down. I suspect that the way to do it is the same way I approached J. K. Rowling at its Featured article review. By first dealing with the easier and non-controversial bits, we had brought everyone up to speed on FA standards, and had developed a comfortable style of working together, which served as well when we dug in last to the controversial parts. So we got through those bits without biting each other's heads off, and with everyone understanding how to keep discussions purely focused on sources. At autism, by cleaning up a lot of the sub-articles in the suite, we may bring more editors to a better knowledge of policies and guidelines, that will serve us when we take on the main articles. It is becoming clear to me that there is some very VERY novice editing going on there (and not by you!! :) How to deal with Asperger's has long stymied me; Eubulides would have known what to do there, so I regret losing them. But if we start small, we might get the job done. @Sideswipe9th: who worked on JK Rowling and has also offered help with autism. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

If we're going to keep an Asperger's article, it's probably best if it's kept as a historical perspective. The diagnosis itself doesn't exist anymore, having been subsumed by autism spectrum disorder in both the ICD11 and DSM-5/5-TR. Just skimming over it, there's a lot of content there that seems to duplicate content covered in more specialised scoped articles like Pathophysiology of autism. We could probably trim anything that's duplicative of more specialised articles, along with maybe anything to do with the actual diagnosis process itself, as that largely doesn't exist any more (countries/regions who have yet to update their diagnostic procedures notwithstanding). But given what I'm about to say below, we may want to leave tackling that article to closer to the end.

I think we might want to start by making a map of all of the sub-articles in the topic. The Autism spectrum template, outline of autism listicle, and Category:autism and its subcategories may be able to help get us started here, though we shouldn't rule out any articles that may exist and aren't linked in any of those places. After that, I like the idea of starting with a smaller article, so we can get everyone on the same page with respect to sourcing, figure out our working styles, and get familiar with any relevant policies or guidelines that we might be unfamiliar with. Sandy's right in that there's a lot of work for us to do, but I think if we take a methodical approach to this we should be able to get everything up to spec. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

The Asperger's diagnosis is no longer recognized by official bodies or professional associations, but it still exists in everyday conversations and as some people's personal identity. It's not entirely a part of history yet. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:48, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

AS is still diagnosed in healthcare systems operating under ICD-10, it's still contained in the 2023 version of the ICD-10-CM (see here). The ICD-11 transition period for mortality statistics is five years (2027) and as far as I know countries are allowed to take even longer to fully transition their healthcare systems to ICD-11. In the non-DSM-world, AS is still very much a thing, even though research into the specific ICD-10 condition has stopped about a decade ago.

I believe that High Functioning Autism might be a good starting point. It's not quite as complex as AS, it's definitely an outdated term/concept, and similar to AS there are competing definitions. Further, we have not only a "medical perspective" but political discussions within academic research, clinical practice, and advocacy circles, which should help us align on standards for selecting sources outside the immediate realm of WP:MEDRS (eg, how do we deal with editorials and commentary arguing for and against the inclusion of an HFA category in the DSM).--TempusTacet (talk) 10:10, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm thinking of starting at even a lower level than the core diagnoses ... things like History of autism, which is an utter debacle, and where editors responsible for that need to be reached and enlightened. It will be much easier to clean up higher-level articles if active editors in the autism suite develop a sense of high-quality sourcing, UNDUE content, summary style, encyclopedic tone, trivia, citation style, and all the rest of what's wrong in there ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:33, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I believe that this article is way too complex as a starting point, considering the vast amount of literature one would need to find, read, and summarize in order to cover over a century of history, with lots of changes to terminology as well as clinical practice and research standards. We recently had a discussion about the article after an editor split it up by decade (has since been reverted) about a sensible structure and an approach to slowly improve it. See Talk:History_of_autism#Very_long.--TempusTacet (talk) 18:54, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Au contraire, I believe the problems there are very easily addressed. But too tired to explain. Forest being missed for the trees. Perfect place to give an example of how not to write an ecyclopedic entry ... very similar to violence and autism, which now is really to a state that an article can be justified ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Ealdgyth considering the translation debacle uncovered in this thread at violence and autism, you might want to glance over this list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:33, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

And this one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:35, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

YOu probably want @Justlettersandnumbers: because I have little time for wiki stuff right now... summer garden, animals, and my own research/writing is basically eating all my time. Ealdgyth (talk) 17:12, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers is a horsey editor? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:32, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, though not a particularly dedicated one (and yes, Ealdgyth, also busy – garden/animals/cultural life and grandchildren!). I've looked at some of those articles, and haven't seen any great problems, though notability is questionable in several of them. French Wikipedia is light-years ahead of us on horse articles, and although I don't like they way they present the material, their pages are usually thoroughly researched and sourced and fully cited (which is a lot more than can be said of most of ours, I fear). I haven't noticed any particular problems with the actual translations either. Do you see any particular possible reason for concern, Sandy? Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:48, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers I had not looked at the horse articles, but was concerned about the translation of some really bad medical content; perhaps it is a matter that the translator from French to English should not have ventured into the medical realm :) Thanks for looking, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:52, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Autogenerating citations doesn't work well for a couple of reasons. First off, it relies on the source providing good metadata, which doesn't always happen. Second, there is no single required citation style - there are multiple citation template options alongside handformatted citations, multiple approaches to citation placement (eg LDR), and even if you settle on a single citation template there is room for variation (eg include publication location or not). That makes it pretty much impossible for anything automated to figure out how a citation should look to match an existing style. There is |mode= in most cite templates that allows switching CS1/CS2, but unfortunately it's not available via VE to my knowledge. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:11, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

There's two help pages on the differences between the styles, WP:CS1 and WP:CS2. With regards to the templates themselves, any of the cite series like {{cite web}}, {{cite news}}, {{cite journal}} are CS1. The {{citation}} template is CS2. Aside from the template, the main difference is in its output to the reader. CS2 uses comma separation between elements like the citation title, author names, publisher, etc., whereas CS1 uses a fullstop. And CS2 omits the punctuation at the end of the citation unless overridden, whereas CS1 ends in a fullstop.

For autogenerated citations, I like to use Citer on Toolforge. It's pretty good with DOIs, and most newsorg URLS. Citer's most useful for me when I'm citing a journal paper that has many authors, as it saves a lot of time by just grabbing the authorlist from the DOI metadata. Sometimes it struggles with identifying books cited by ISBN, and you may have to go onto WorldCat to find an alternative ISBN for the book. Just make sure that when you do look for an alternative ISBN, that you're not getting an ISBN for an earlier or newer edition of the work, which may have the content in a different place or omitted entirely. Otherwise, as Nikkimaria says, sometimes the metadata can be wrong, so make sure to verify the output from any tool before adding it to an article. Mostly though I'll just type the templates by hand in the source view. I find the visual editor has too many issues with inserting odd <nowiki /> tags when dealing with templates. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't know of anyone except SandyGeorgia who still uses Diberri's (directly). VisualEditor (visual or wikitext modes) uses mw:citoid to autogenerate citations, and it can handle PMIDs, PMCIDs, DOIs, URLs (e.g., books.google.com), some ISBNs, and more. The 2010 wikitext editor uses WP:RefToolbar to autofill citations.

None of the citation fillers can do everything. For example, none of them are set up to handle chapter titles. But all of them can handle most information for most types of sources, and there are a few editors who specialize in repairing problems with citations, so generally I provide a reasonable level of information and then let other people sort it out. Sometimes (e.g., at Shortbread recently), I've found that trying to do things perfectly doesn't help. I provided two separate(!) page numbers for a book, and a convenience link directly to the first of them, and found an editor reverting half of it because he didn't notice that there were two page numbers listed, and apparently angry at me for pointing out the existence of the page numbers in the citation. The article now contains at least one factual error, but I've given up (and started citing books in other articles without providing a link to an online copy). Sometimes it's just not worth it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:00, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanations!--TempusTacet (talk) 09:55, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

TempusTacet some further explanation on me (allegedly) being the only one "who still uses Diberri". First, that's not entirely the case. BogHog still goes through fixing CITEVAR breaches, and all recent medical FAs also use the vancouver format (and the easiest way to get the vancouver format is to use Diberri). A decade ago, WP:MED was one of the better WikiProject producers of Featured articles, and all used Diberri. So you'll still find what were once quality articles using that format-- the problem became that WP:MED got away from quality when it went through a period of over-focusing on leads to the exclusion of the rest of the article, for purposes of translating leads, and most quality at WP:MED deteriorated-- so now you find important article after article full of junk and mixed and incomplete citations. This is not a good thing, obviously, but the days of motivation to generate top content at WP:MED seem gone, with the exception of about five or six of us who still work at it. Also, almost every quality medical articles uses the vancouver format, whether or not editors use Diberri to generate that style. A big problem with other formats is that they don't always give a PMID, and PMIDs make access so much easier. So keeping the tool bookmarked will make your editing easier. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:27, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

PS, and if we are to clean up the entire autism suite, it will behoove us to use the standard across the suite, since the all the core articles do use Diberri. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:34, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Not true. The inbuilt cite feature will handle chapters from many online book repositories like Taylor and Francis, de Gruyter, Springer, etc. as long as the chapter has a separate url link. I rarely link books unless they are open access since it's unpredictable whether you can view a certain page, eg on services like Gbooks. (t · c) buidhe 17:24, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

TIL that early opposes at FAC are "poisoning the well"

No wonder there are not more opposes even when abundantly warranted! (for wikidrama see this FAC) (t · c) buidhe 06:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

1. I had to look that up.
2. I just spent three months of my life in the depths of boatloads of the some of the worst Wikipedia content I've ever seen, so my feelings about FAC might be overly optimistic right now, in spite of the long-standing absence of the much needed oppose button on every aspect of the criteria.
3. What comes to mind re that FAC is Rodney King. But on a more personal note:
   1. Ling will always be ling.
   2. Opposes and comentary on FACs by delegates in my day were very rare and reserved for extreme situations. Because you have to maintain a certain relationship with nominators. It has been a massive mistake to assign too many "Coords", and then let them recuse as often as they wish. This has blurred the lines of their job while turning FAC into an extension of MilHist.
      1. Has anyone noticed some of the level of (not) quality coming out at TFA of late? Is this a hill to die on considering some of the other stuff FAC is producing?
      2. Do/will MilHist articles get the same level of scrutiny Ling will get?

That's all I've got. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:09, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Actually. No, that's not all I've got. This is a good example of why FAC shot itself permanently and irreparably in the foot by firing the director. He kept out of the daily business of FAC precisely so that he could be called in as an objective and uninvolved person to settle disputes involving the delegates. And yet FAC and its drawer full of socks and their supporters (who coincidentally I was just mentioning in the section two above this one) fired Raul for ... appointing delegates and staying out of the daily business so he could be neutral. So FAC got what it asked for (elections have consequences).

But for the record, Raul would have stayed out of it, let you all have your go at each other, and then he would have restarted the FAC after you had spent your fury and give room for others to weigh in on a new FAC. If you have a personal issue with regular nominators, you should stay out of their FACs unless it is an uncontroversial close. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm basically not a coord anymore, I have a standing offer to step down in favor of someone qualified and willing to do more than I do (occasional noncontroversial closes).

I am not upset by this incident, more bemused. You're right, there are a lot of garbage FAs and articles that do not get enough scrutiny at FAC. And I appreciate your patience for DCGAR cleanup. (t · c) buidhe 07:27, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

But you really are a Coord, and if FAC had a director, and a nominator had an issue with one Coord, the correct route then would have been to approach the director and ask that one Coord stay out. Instead, in the absence of a director, Ling approached you personally, and then you felt it OK to bring that information to the FAC. The blurring of the lines is that your *first* *duty* as a Coord is to the process-- not to a nominator or a reviewer or an article, but to always act in favor of the integrity of and preservation of the (whatever good is left in the ) process. Since you are a Coord, early input *does* have an impact, and as a Coord, it is incumbent upon you to recognize that and act judiciously. My suggestion would have been to not be first in, rather to wait and see what others had to say. (Recognizing that rigorous review is no longer the norm, Hog Farm's post above being an example of a welcome exception.) Why not give it first two weeks to see what others find? Now we won't know how it might have gone ... and you're stuck with that. Restart comes to mind again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Buidhe as a gesture of good will, and to help get that FAC back on track (not because any particular FAC or nominator deserves special treatment), if'n I were in your shoes, I would move the entire commentary and section initiated by you to the talk page of the FAC, and revisit only after several weeks and others have had a chance for review (only because your timing of being in first and bringing up controversy was unfortunate). There are MUCH bigger problems festering at FAC that can be better explored by not having one specific FAC become the focus of dispute and discussion. One star that you might disagree with does not the process ruin; allowing a long- and much-needed discussion to revolve around one FAC ends up giving us bad cases that make bad law. By putting FAC in a position where any discussion of the many problems will then revolve around that one FAC, the chances of a productive and successful discussion are lowered. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

For similar reasons to this, I won't review road articles anymore, after the archiving complaints at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ontario Highway 8/archive1, the source review mess at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ontario Highway 8/archive2, minor snark at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/U.S. Route 34 in Iowa/archive2, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M-144 (1937–1939 Michigan highway), and Wikipedia:Featured article review/M-28 Business (Ishpeming–Negaunee, Michigan)/archive1. It's a walled garden, but I suspect that me butting in there again is not going to be well-received.

I've been on the brink of resigning from FAC coord for months - I barely have the time to go through the whole list, and then you get editors using FAC nomination statements to complain about rules that they don't like. I'm running out of energy for the process ... Hog Farm _Talk 14:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I gave up on the process, both as a reviewer and as a coord. Too much flack and not enough actual desire to improve articles from some of the regulars plus a declining amount of time to devote to wikipedia meant that something had to go .. and FAC was easy to justify. I miss the older times, but I just don't have the time for that amount of devotion to anything on wiki any more. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

As someone relatively new to FAC still, and who joined Wikipedia after many of these events happened, I've found that unless you have massive social capital, trying to get reviewers is like herding cats - my current nomination has been up for close to a month now, and only has any reviews at all because I reviewed two FACs and their nominators did me a favor by reviewing mine as well. There's a shortage of reviewers, and what others have brought up above only makes it worse - no way in hell I would be asking someone not to do a source review! And with so few reviewers, I suspect people are reluctant to oppose since even one oppose will sink a nomination. GAN isn't much better, suffering from the lack of reviewers problem even more. Being a coord is a thankless job, because it makes you a target for angry nominators (I've been guilty of this myself at my first ever nomination).

Just look at the monthly review stats. There's essentially no opposes! Isn't it strange that FAC has a higher pass rate than GAN, and far more nominations fail on inactivity than on their own merits? How often are people engaging with the prose in reviews, beyond just grammar? We ran a proposal drive for GAN at the start of the year, maybe it's time to try FAC reforms? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:07, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

TAOT, given that a year or two back, there was opposition to adding WP:FACR #1f, I doubt that FAC reforms like what happened with the GAN proposal drive would go anywhere. Hog Farm _Talk 15:20, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes to everything everyone said, but the root of the problems remain as I've stated for years. We have an absence of leadership in one person whose job it was to make sure the overall process is working and to initiate and shepherd discussions on talk about the process. That has been replaced by leadership that has actively discouraged talk page discussions, wants to have their cake and eat it too (as both nominators, reviewers and promoters/archivers), and wants to self-select who follows in their shoes, at the same time that the "established" is now much more of a "dictatorship" than Raul ever (never) was, and has not had a healthy turnover rate or even attempted to promote constructive dialogue or helpful critique. (Hog Farm Don't You Dare Give Up; you are one who will listen.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

PS, Hog Farm, seriously, don't you dare resign. What has been long missing is a frank and open discussion about how Coords are selected, where those who dare speak up aren't chased out by the aforementioned (two sections above) prima donnas who are attached to their bling, followed by a well-crafted (not spurious and undiscussed as was the steaming pile of sock-driven shit that forced out Raul) RFC to reboot the entire process, which now reeks of all manner of stench. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Trainsandotherthings I have a VERY busy day or two ahead, but I have watchlisted your FAC and will try to get over there by the weekend. I am making a very big exception as these days I find FAC a most difficult place to be, but I do want to thank you for the help on the DCGAR. So I owe you :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Thoughts from the peanut gallery: I consider WP:Call a spade a spade a last resort, but walled gardens are massively detrimental to the project and need to be identified as what they are. As soon as a corner of the project thinks that it's exempt from sitewide consensus in favor of its own practices or that it should have any greater say over a certain area, it essentially breaks that section of the project. This applies to WP:FAC, WP:HWY, and any other area that isn't open to the broader consensus process. It actively prevents good faith contributions, and it frightens away who knows how many potential new editors. Walled gardens must be met with a sledgehammer if the project is to succeed. Anything less will not only tacitly endorse this sort of behavior, but it will allow it to fester and get worse over time. I'll gladly support any measure that has a good chance of countering walled gardens. I was workshopping a possible update to WP:CONLEVEL in my sandbox based on the input of a few other editors interested in this issue, but nothing came of it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but in what way does FAC behave like a walled garden in your opinion? (t · c) buidhe 02:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I might have over-edited my comment and mixed a few of my complaints together. I was trying to say that FAC facilitates that behavior, not that it's a separate walled garden in its own right. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:29, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

FAC has turned into a QPQ. I'm not blaming anyone for this, but it is a statement of reality. Unfortunately, I don't know how to fix this either. Rschen7754 03:16, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Rschen7754, that has also been my sense since I (who have most certainly done my share at FAC) had to beg for reviews for dementia with Lewy bodies even after my efforts via User:SandyGeorgia/Achieving excellence through featured content to get medical FA content going again, along with all of my efforts to get pre-FAC peer review going again. Through that, I finally understood that FAC really has become an extension of MilHist, and the rest of us just don't have the means to drum up reviewers except via QPQ. And I don't know the solution but I do know all of the things that USED to be done but no longer are, and we just don't have anyone taking leadership on all the suggestions I've made over the years. Maybe because the MilHist regulars just aren't seeing how bad it is for everyone else. Other than that, I'm sorry for not weighing in more here; I have an awful lot going on IRL and come home at night too tired to do anything more than chip away at some articlehistory errors or the copyright contributor investigation. Real article work requires focus I don't have just now ... finding commentary here very interesting at any rate. Want to remind people of the importance of being kind to each other (probably 'cuz that's what matters of late in my real life). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:30, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Objectively, that is not surprising when three of the four FAC coordinators are current or former MILHIST coordinators. I don't fault them for that, but more subject diversity should have been thought of in the last selection process. Rschen7754 16:36, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I cautiously raised that point then, but it was difficult to state how strongly I felt there was a breakdown in how the selection process is working, as that would come across as criticism of Buidhe and Hog Farm, which I did not intend. But the process is not working, it is self-perpetuating, and the process took a decided negative turn over a decade ago away from the process Raul used, yielding paradoxically more of a "dictatorship" than Raul was criticized for. The process needs revamping before the next cycle, and it is time for some to move along and bring in some non-MilHist people who will promote discussion, diversity, new ideas, etc. along with bringing back the old hands who have been alienated. We are sadly missing Karanacs (literature and history), Laser brain (music and pop culture), Ucucha (biology), SG and Graham (medicine and biology), and so on and so forth ... I can no longer advocate that bringing medical content to FAC is worth the effort, when even I can't get reviewed in spite of my willingness to review any topic any time ... all of the diversity of interests and strengths we used to have has been exchanged for one reviewing model that may be working for MilHist, because it has so many members, but is not working for FAC, where there is a shortage now so critical that the bronze star risks becoming as meaningless as the GA icon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I would say more that the lack of reviewers is a chronic across the board issue rather than exempting MILHIST articles. People editing in the MILHIST space who don't have trouble getting reviews are often those who review frequently (not as QPQ, but I do prioritize reviewing articles when the editor is an active reviewer) and/or have a reputation for quality in their FACs making it easier to review. In the past I had trouble finding enough reviews for MILHIST related topics but there was no issue in certain non-MILHIST topics that I nominated such as Röhm scandal and first homosexual movement. I would be happy to step aside for another qualified coord who works in divergent topic area(s), but so far no takers. Since this is a volunteer position, that's kind of an insurmountable obstacle. (t · c) buidhe 19:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Fully agree about QPQ, and also about not seeing any easy solution. Not one of my FACs would have passed without de facto QPQ to get reviewers. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Place holder because, oh boy, I have thoughts and feeling about this --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 15:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

(I managed to tear my triceps surae muscle yesterday; sorry for the slow reply.) I think there are several interconnected problems here:

1. Some topic areas - MILHIST and ROADS come to mind - show up at FAC with reviewers that pretty much only review within their topic area. When people outside of it push back, mostly on sourcing, the reactions are not great.
2. Outside of those areas it is hard to get reviewers, so there has been a rise in QPQ-style reviews. I think some of it comes from mutual trust built between editors over months of working together. I will say that my reviewing stats show that I am more likely to review articles from people and wikiprojects that I trust to bring high-quality articles. I think my 50 reviews since my first FA in 2020 makes it more likely that people will review an FA a year from me. I do not dip my standards for anyone and I hope that editors would never dip their standard for me.

   Scrolling through FAC, something that jumps out at me is how few reviews some people do. It is sometimes hard to feel bad for people who have a reviews to nominations ratio below 5. (Transparency: Myself 17.7, Sandy 327.3, buidhe 29.1, Trains 3.3, Hog Farm 7.7, Rschen 8.9, Thebiguglyalien 2.0) The only way to fix this is for people to give back to the process.

3. FAC has become the new peer review because it is the last place left where you can get actual actionable feedback. My GA reviews are probably harder than they need to be because I know how bad it is out there. I conduct FAC source reviews for people who want it at GA because sometimes it is nice to catch problems early.
4. The dirth of opposes is worrying, but it is also related to the fact that any objection is an oppose even if you don't register it as one.

Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 15:59, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Thx for your thoughts. Hope your leg heals soon! (t · c) buidhe 17:04, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

While I certainly do not endorse the blatant incivility that Floydian left on his FACs, the political rhetoric here and here has left the impression that some (certainly not all) of the FAC delegates might not act neutrally in the subject area of highways. (In all fairness, HF did apologize for the second remark). I will also point to User:Rschen7754/FAQ for the other allegations. --Rschen7754 03:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I've been a Sandy talk page stalker for many years, so I've been following this discussion, which is interesting. I've been thinking about the QPQ part of the discussion. One of my frustrations about bringing figure skating bios and articles to peer review is that the reviewers often don't know about the sport, so the same questions get asked over and over. Yes, I enlist fellow experts about a topic to help review the articles I submit, especially at GAN, mostly due to the long queue. That's not canvassing, or is it? I also push back when the non-experts who try and review the articles I submit get things wrong, even criticism about the sources. I mean, peer reviews in scholarly journals are done by experts in the field; why shouldn't we do that here in WP for FAC and GAN? The superior aspect of peer reviews here is that we get more reviewers than in scholarly journals, especially WP experts, and as a consequence, sources are checked more rigorously. Perhaps the solution, then, is to have both types of reviewers: topic experts and WP experts. Just some thoughts, folks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

There's two sides to the coin of topic familiarity /expertise. One that the person actually knows about the subject to spot errors and notice omissions. Two, the walled garden effect where certain corners of Wikipedia may develop a local consensus that contradicts sitewide consensus. For example, they waive through a source that is perceived as accurate even though it cannot be proven to have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. (t · c) buidhe 19:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I've had to deal with this with trains (the main area where I am a subject matter expert), launching an entire RfC because a few editors decided that train stations were automatically notable just by existing and notability rules didn't apply, and forced their viewpoint through at a series of not well-attended AfD discussions. As it turned out, the broader community (and to be fair, most train editors) felt otherwise. I make a point of reviewing things outside of my wheelhouse and I think everyone should once in a while. At the same time, as someone who's been train obsessed since childhood I know a lot about this topic area and it has helped me catch errors or omissions when reviewing train articles. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Is the flippancy helping? Probably not. But there's absolutely no wrong statements made in that AfD or the FAR. I've talked about it for years at this point that few WikiProjects are good about cleaning up their own cruft, but it's hilarious to me that a project that deals with so much fictional topics like WP:VG is so much better about tending its garden than projects like Roads, where you're spearheading an effort to say "it's on a map, so I can not only just use the map to source an entire article, the fact it's on a map makes it notable." Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:28, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia Strikes Again

ANI has looked so depressing to me lately... so many users being the topic of discussion whom I've had such pleasurable interactions with... SN, Specifico, MaranoFan, ErnestKrause etc. Very disheartening to see; I feel like this site brings out the worst in everyone so often. – Aza24 (talk) 03:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I missed those instances, but have noticed a trend where not enough people are telling whiny editors to grow up or get a new hobby. I saw one of the rudest editors I've come across in recent history complaining at ANI about very minor incivility from another editor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I missed their beginnings, but they're all simultaneously active threads, which is what worries me! I think you're right that the attitude has quickly become going to ANI far before attempting other solutions/dispute-resolution. I guess in these kinds of disputes everyone thinks they're the victim and the sentiment that "oh if everyone else heard about this they'd agree with me" arises. Aza24 (talk) 04:55, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Hmmmm ... perhaps I should clue in to ANI then. I only noticed one thread because I follow a most uncivil and disruptive editor, and noticed them ironically complaining about fairly minor incivility from another editor. Because I am crazy busy IRL and barely keeping up here, and am scarcely familiar with the editor being complained about, I didn't take the time to investigate further and haven't had a thorough look at ANI for weeks. I'm afraid that real life lately is such that I can barely keep up with trivial matters like correcting article history errors ... things that require no brain and no concentration. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:33, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

So, what I see happening at quite a few ANI threads is heavy participation from a somewhat newish but highly-active-at-ANI editor who has never impressed me, and who needs a heavy dose of Bishonen-style wisdom accumulated over the years. Some editors like Bish who would shut down the going-nowhere-but-trying-to-make-a-name-for-myself-at-ANI threads is missing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not involving myself in GAN matters, simply because that place remains a mystery to me, but ... if I were to compare it to FAC, I have always advocated that matters should be settled at FAC, so if I were to be consistent, I'd have to take that route. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

As the one who started the EK thread, I need to emphasize that other dispute resolution methods were tried first, and EK ignored them. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:35, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

It looks painful, TAOT; sorry to see that, but I didn't feel right weighing in on GA matters of that nature, so for once, kept my mouth shut. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:48, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Same–GAN is a whirlpool that I try to get in and out of quickly. I have huge admiration for the folks who keep it going though... urgh I need to get back to doing GAN reviews! – Aza24 (talk) 06:19, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't enjoy taking people to ANI, especially established contributors, but sometimes there's just no choice. I try to keep tabs on GAN along with a few other editors as somebody's got to be providing oversight. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:36, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

At least for me, GAN has become where I send things that I'd like to get a review on either as a pre-ACR or when there's clearly no chance to get it to anything higher with the sourcing that I have available/even exists (example being Battle of Snyder's Bluff, which is so reliant on Ed Bearss that I'm having doubts about even the GAN). And in a way, it seems GAN truly lives up to the "several rungs below FAC" in editor behavior as well. I've seen some bad behavior/egos as a FAC coordinator, but frankly GAN is often further down the gutter. Hog Farm _Talk 00:47, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

There's a certain irony in that FAC is actually lower-stakes than GAN. If your FAC gets archived, you can fix the problems and come back in 2 weeks. If your GAN is failed, even if you fix the problems right away you might not get another reviewer for 6+ months! Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:35, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

(←) GAN == "make an article not suck"; FAC == "make an article excellent" (or as excellent as a bunch of us know how). And the difference between FAC and GAN in terms of behavior is... well, they're actually pretty much the same, except the former is more polite and less obvious about it all... § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 02:05, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

We also run into issues because GAN just has one editor reviewing. You may get someone who does a surficial review that doesn't fully evaluate the article against the criteria or someone who goes much more in-depth. At FAC, the requirements for multiple reviewers and the existence of coords allows more consistent application of standards to nominations. We really need to enforce completion of spotchecks for text-source integrity and copyvio at GAN if we want to improve the quality there. There's also of course the people who dump piles of nominations and refuse to review... it drives me nuts. I wish the community would collectively blacklist the people with 50+ GAs and no reviews. I haven't nominated anything at GAN in months as I'm getting quite discouraged seeing how long reviews sit (and I am at about a 1:1 review ratio which is better than most nominees). My one active nomination has been up since February. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:35, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Just started a GAN review of an article that's been in the queue for 6 months. If you ever start a thread about enforcing some generous limits on the free rider problem, ping me. I'll join the chorus... Maybe something like "You get 10 GAs with no expectation of a review, but after that, it's 1 nom for every 3 reviews". Or something. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 05:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Believe me, I've tried... people freak out and say you're stopping the promotion of good content. Take a look at Wikipedia:Good Article proposal drive 2023. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:42, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

There are so many people invested in the GA process that change isn't possible. Unfortunately, most of those involved there are not Ealdgyth. I have always tried to avoid the place, but after WP:DCGAR, it is a bigger mystery to me than ever. Some of the reviews I read during DCGAR were simply ... astounding. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:25, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

PS, what we should be more worried about is that, as experienced reviewers well versed in FA standards are fewer and farther between, and often chased out, GA standards are bleeding in to FAC based on the sheer numbers of reviewers who are accustomed to GA-level content and comfortable with it, and believe it to be more than "make an article not suck". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

So many of our problems boil down to not having enough editors, especially experienced ones. And I won't lie, the barriers to entry for newer editors at FAC are very high. I hate saying it but I don't have a solution at all. I don't know what we can do to improve things at GAN or FAC. WT:GAN is a revolving door of people reporting issues with reviewers, and there are surely many more that don't get reported. Even in my ~2 years here I've seen plenty of drama at FAC as well. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

You say you have no solutions, and yet your post just before this one points to the solution: If your FAC gets archived, you can fix the problems and come back in 2 weeks. FAC is not peer review, but under the current expectations, it has become peer review. The idea that archival is a bad thing has replaced my mantra, which was "archival and working off-FAC is often the fastest way to promotion". By allowing this to happen, the FAC Coords have effectively killed off PR as an alternative, and forced FAC to continue as the purgatory is has become, where articles are pulled through at any expense, with glaring items often unmentioned. They refuse to go back to a Support, Oppose or Comment format (even though that is codified in the instructions[2]), and allow lengthy PRs-- even encourage them-- at FAC. Before all of my attempts to help revive FAC were rudely rebuffed, I had begun work to reviving PR, and it was working. And I had begun reinstating the Oppose, which was also working. I can refer you to the FAC archives if you want to see how my efforts were received.

As to reporting issues with reviewers, that again is a Coord issue. My mantra was always that without reviewers, we don't have bronze stars. The hard-working faithful are much more valuable than the prima donna star collectors, who wouldn't have those stars without the reviewers. I had little tolerance for complaints about reviewers, as it was my "job" as delegate to overlook bad reviews and to know who the QPQ reviewers were and similar. It's not clear to me that the current Coords consider it part of the big picture to be aware of QPQ and the like, or to initiate talk discussions when there are problems, but we do know that very good reviewers have been chased off, which neither Raul nor any of the delegates I served with would have tolerated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:57, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm certainly cognizant of the fact that reviewer time is our most precious resource at both GAN and FAC. That said, there are times when reviewers behave poorly that should be addressed. There are certainly some problematic nominators too, though. Perhaps what needs to happen is it made more clear that archiving of an FAC is not a big deal. When my first attempt was archived, I was pissed, and knowing what I know now I shouldn't have been, because that archived nomination contained all I needed to know in order to improve the article and come back later with a successful nomination, which is ultimately what happened. Nowadays, opposing a nomination basically is seen as an attack and will attract complaints and/or vitriol. And so we see in the monthly stats nearly zero opposes. There certainly have been nominations where I was inclined to oppose but decided it wasn't worth the inevitable drama and simply abstained from commenting at all.

I think some of this comes from a lust for lots of shiny badges (look at Doug Coldwell as the quintessential example) and some amount of ego, as opposed to being motivated by improving the world's largest free encyclopedia. It's ok to take pride in your work (I certainly do), but FAC isn't something anyone is entitled to. Some nominators act like they deserve an automatic pass just for showing up. Lately I've been demotivated to participate at GAN or FAC, and the last time I nominated anything was over 2 months ago. All of these things are part of why I find I have less motivation. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:11, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

TAOT this is a great post (I hope my post before it did not come across as criticism of your ANI-- we just have to be able to have frank conversations if we are to move FAC out of the stall it is in ... sorry I am so swamped IRL that my posts leave openings for misunderstanding ... ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:33, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I do think a contributory problem is that there aren't really any good non-FAC venues for a detailed article review. PR is very hit-and-miss; sometimes you get useful input but it's rarely at the level of a FAC review. Recruiting individual editors can work if you know who they are, but they aren't always available. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:05, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

GACR and FACR

This would be a bit offtopic for the RfC, so I thought I'd follow up here. I actually didn't draft that RfC (though I'm not trying to abdicate responsibility for posting that wording); it came from some earlier conversation on GA talk, and I just posted the consensus wording. The main impetus, in my reading of those discussions, was that experienced reviewers are already asking for citations for essentially everything, just like at FAC, and have been doing so for years. (You asked what the difference would be between GACR and FACR if we were to adopt the new wording; I would say there's not much difference in wording between the existing wordings of the two sets of criteria.) The RfC was intended to capture what's already happening. You make a good point that perhaps FACR is also out of sync with reality, but for various reasons I've mostly been engaged with GA for the last six or eight months, and hadn't even though about FACR. If someone were to propose an equivalent change to FACR I'd probably support that for the same reason I proposed this change. I would guess this RfC is going to fail, based on the trends. That won't really change GA reviews -- most GA reviews are already happening as if this wording is in place. If it fails, and I'm reviewing and ask for a citation and the nominator refuses, citing GACR's exceptions, I'll do as Thryduulf suggested and ask for the citation on WP:V grounds. I think it would be better to have the criteria reflect the practice, but c'est la vie. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:50, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: OK, thanks for the background, Mike; now it makes more sense. So the answer to one of my questions would be resolved by rewriting Wikipedia:Compare criteria Good v. Featured article to conform. So on the bigger question, I think the RFC was doomed by the approach. If the aim is in fact to tighten GA citation requirements to the same level as FA, then the citation criterion should just be the same as WP:WIAFA, else if there's a problem with the FA criteria, they should be rewritten. My personal view is that there is not a problem; where appropriate is generally a matter of editor consensus, and FA reviewers are generally doing what in my view they should be doing. (That is, there are very few instances actually of the sky is blue and nominators can push back if reviewers ask that bluesky be cited). I suspect one of the reasons you ended up with this flawed RFC is that there are more participants in the GA process than in the FA process, and they don't all take into account the inconsistency that appears to have been created. That is, they aren't all working together.  :). Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

The aim of the proposal is not to tighten GA requirements to the same level of FA, the aim is to reduce the gulf between the vague GA wording and how they are applied in practice. The entirely cliquey understanding of "where appropriate" to mean "almost everywhere" is understandably somewhat inscrutable for less experienced editors, and GA deals with far more less experienced editors than FA (FAC benefits greatly in this respect by having a GAN filter).

Regarding comparing the GACR and FACR, in terms of presence boths GAs and FAs expect the same level of citations. This is in line with the Wikipedia:When to cite essay cited in the FACR (and has the same exceptions). However, in terms of quality, the FACR remains higher. The GACR prescribe only that a source be reliable, not that it be one of the higher quality possibilities. I feel Wikipedia:Compare criteria Good v. Featured article already emphasises this by noting GA "sources are reliable" while FAs have "high-quality reliable sources". CMD (talk) 01:51, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis thanks for all this. I'm still trying to catch up on the backstory, but now have to go out to a meeting. I started here; will revisit WT:GAN as soon as I can. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Article history

I know FACBot handles the article history template on talk pages when an article is promoted to FA/removed at FAR—do you know if there is any other bot which can work the AH template on command? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:54, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

There are a few bots doing different pieces, but no one bot doing it all as GimmeBot used to ... what are you hoping to see and I can point you in the right direction, maybe. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:57, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Idk, I guess I was just hoping for a bot you can point at a confusing mess of failed GA nominations/peer reviews and have it sort it out for you. Hopefully someone creates it someday. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:47, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

AirshipJungleman29, nope, but you can point me at it and I'll fix it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

At that point I might as well sort it out manually myself although SandyBot is an intriguing idea! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:58, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Samples

AirshipJungleman29 here is a weekly sample to more completely answer your question above. @Hawkeye7 and Novem Linguae: and I'm not sure what bot does GA closes. As you can see, we have multiple bots adding talk page entries and creating and correcting articlehistories, but no single bot doing what GimmeBot used to do, which was roll EVERY talk page template in to AH. In particular, I'm not sure any of the bots roll in AFDs. Another issue is that different bots are using different formats (when I intervene manually, I stick to the format listed at the template for consistency).

See Petscan 23807355. After I tired of manually correcting AH, 0xDeadbeef kindly created User:DeadbeefBot to roll OTD, ITN, and DYK in to an existing AH; most of the omissions below will be caught by DeadbeefBot, but it cannot automatically catch or correct all of these issues (for example, it won't roll in GANs or AFDs that got left out of AH). Occasionally, an individual editor creates the incomplete AH, and in some of those cases, DeadbeefBot will catch the omissions, but sticking to standardized format will hopefully help more editors understand how AH works.

• MilHist bot creates AH without rolling in DYK
  • MilHist bot creates AH without rolling in GAN or DYK
  • MilHist bot creates AH without rolling in GAN or DYK
• FACbot closes FLC without rolling in DYK
  • FACbot closes FLC without rolling in ITN
  • FACbot closes FLC without rolling in DYK
• GAR closer creates AH without rolling in OTD
  • GAR closer creates AH without rolling in DYK
  • GAR closer creates AH without rolling in DYK
• GAR closer all round ACK! After individual intervention, DYK and AFD are still not rolled in, requires manual fixing
• Individual editor adds ITN when AH exists
• Individual editor builds AH without rolling in ITN or removing old peer review

Deadbeefbot will catch most, but not all of these, on its next run; faulty GA closes will always be and have always been a problem, as they do not follow a standard format used by all other content review processes (that is, PR, FA, FL, and DYK, as I've discussed ad nauseum with Mike Christie). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:51, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

PS, what bot closes GANs? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe any bot rolls peer reviews in to AH. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

A combination of User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/GANReviewTool (optional) and User:ChristieBot, I think. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I can't find examples of GAN closes (we know GAR closer misses a few things). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe that the GAN closer tool does article history yet - [3] Hog Farm _Talk 17:01, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

You can find examples of GANReviewTool closes at User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/GANReviewTool/GANReviewLog.

GANReviewTool does article history only if {{Article history}} is already on the talk page. Code.

GANReviewTool doesn't currently fold in other templates. Code. This is a pretty complex job that would require a lot of code and testing to do correctly. For example, what if {{Article history}} already exists, and you need to insert {{DYK talk}}, but it needs to be inserted as like action #3 to get the chronological order correct, but there's already 5 actions? Then you need code to change a bunch of the action numbers. It sounds like an ideal {{Article history}} cleanup bot would also reorder all the params into an ideal order, also with different line break strategies to create visual "groups" of parameters. Probably needs a dedicated bot that just specializes in that. Perhaps DeadbeefBot can become that bot. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:42, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes (GimmeBot did all that) -- except in your example, DYK does not need to be inserted in chrono order, as it is not an action ... it is one time event that goes at the end of the template, similar to ITN and OTD. Your example is true for folding in old AFDs, peer reviews, GANs, etc, which I do manually in those cases that come to my attention.

If we can get more editors to understand the AH template, less work all around, because when someone creates an AH template, but leaves out a process, it is more work to go back and add it in, because of chrono order. (By the way, the template still works even when the actions are not put in chrono order.) All of these bots doing partial jobs (except Oxdeadbeef) are making the job harder, because if they just left FAC, FAR, GA etc templates on talk for one bot to fold in, that bot would be much easier to code as it wouldn't have to move action numbers. I suspect that's why GimmeBot could do it, and others can't -- the bots themselves have created a hard to code situation, whereas GimmeBot kept all talk pages and all templates in order, so rarely had to worry about action numbers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Any bot handling a template needs to read the template parameters. The T:AH actions need to be read and stored in some structure, then other templates read and added to the structure as other actions. Then everything gets sorted by date, which is an easy part. The complexity - even back then - is the logic needed to handle as many as possible of the variations people made. Gimmetrow 03:56, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

When I have time I will implement functionality that parses all parameters so they can be sorted and reordered when other templates (Such as {{GA}} and {{Failed GA}}) are folded. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 04:43, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

0xDeadbeef you are a gem. If you read on, you will see how many different problems are being created by different editors and bots, and IMO, it is the bots that are making this a very hard situation to code around. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Next samples

To look at how bot proliferation is creating the AH problem.

Petscan for GAs outside of AH  Done

• Talk:Battle of Berea
  • Individual editor passes GA without building AH and without providing oldid
  • Legobot adds oldid
  • Individual editor passes A class without building AH
  • MilHist bot adds AH for A-class without merging in GA (and places articlehistory above the talk header)
  • Individual editor who nominated A class updates status without correcting AH or indicating current status
    • Correcting AH then requires resorting the actions to add GA as action1 while moving A-class review to action2, moving AH to the correct place on the page, and updating current status
• Talk:TRAPPIST-1
  • Individual editor promotes GA without building in to existing AH
  • Incorporate GA to AH
    • This one was not difficult, but should this article next go to FAC again, then FACbot would have gone through and would not build the GA in to AH, creating a problem. Solutions are 1) train GA reviewers to build in to AH, 2) encourage nominator to build in to AH, 3) get FACbot to build in to AH, 4) write a separate bot to build in to AH before FACbot goes through and misses it, so that we can 5) get BACK to the clean talk pages that one bot could process because we didn't have all different kinds of messes.
• Talk:M8 Armored Gun System similar to Battle of Berea above-- problem caused by MilHistbot building AH without merging in DYK or GAN. Note also that narry a soul is respecting talk page order of items
  • Merge both DYK and GAN to AH; once again, multiple editor and bots intervened without building the AH. These include the nominator of both the GAN, DYK, and A-class, the GA reviewer, the A-class passing editor, and then MilHistBot. Should this progress to FAC, then FACBot would close the FAC without folding in the GAN or the DYK. Oxdeadbeef would get the DYK, but not the GAN. Multiple fails. SUGGESTION: MilHistBot is creating a bigger problem than it is solving by building incomplete AHs; if it would just leave the A-class templates on the talk page, one bot could be designed to build AH correctly, without having to re-sort the actions.
• Talk:Albert Luthuli offers both a PR and a GAN that haven't been correctly rolled in to an existing AH
  • Peer review is closed
  • Individual editor builds the AH correctly but does not remove old templates
  • Mike Christie passes GA but does not fold in to existing AH
  • Iamawesomeautomatic again (almost) correctly builds AH but fails to remove templates which were merged to AH, and fails to add |currentstatus = GA so the articlehistory template renders incorrectly
  • Because the AH was at least built by the nominator editor (hurray), when the DYK bot goes through, it does roll the DYK nom in to the AH. Had it not, Oxdeadbeef bot would have caught that part. CONCLUSION: at least one editor tried, and having the AH at least built avoids future need to re-sort action items.
• Talk:Hearst Castle AH exists, but AN was not rolled in and current status is not indicated, so template is rendering incorrectly
  • FACbot fails to add currentstatus after FAC archive
  • Two experienced editors (both the GAN nominator and reviewer) fail to a) add the oldid, or b) build the GA pass into AH.
  • At least ChristieBot catches the oldid
  • Fixing this one was relatively simple, but again, without this manual intervention, should this article next appear at FAC, FACbot would not roll the GAN in, and then actions would need to be re-ordered.
• Talk:Hanford Engineer Works -- same problem as two others above -- created by MilHist bot building a partial articlehistory without rolling in an existing DYK or GAN. Oxdeadbeef bot will catch the DYK, but not the GAN.
  • Two experienced editors nominate and pass the GAN without building the AH or providing the oldid: ChristieBot catches the oldid
  • Because the AH wasn't built, the DYK bot adds a template (which Oxdeadbeef bot will catch)
  • MilHistBot builds AH without rolling in GAN or DYK and fails to add currentstatus, so AH template renders incorrectly
  • Again, manual intervention is required, and is complex because actions have to be re-ordered. Should this article proceed to FAC, FACbot will not roll in the GAN, although Oxdeadbeefbot would catch the missing DYK on its next run. Same as above other examples, MilHistbot is creating the need to re-order actions, which makes further coding to catch all of these problems more difficult.

Looking down the rest of the Petscan list, I see many milhist articles, and suspect the issues will be the same on most of them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Checking one more I recognize as an WP:FFA and not MilHist: a GAN pass not rolled in to an existing AH. Should it proceed to FAC again, FACbot will not roll in the GA.

• Talk:Geology Hall, New Brunswick, New Jersey
  • I already had to clean the AH after it was archived at FAR
  • GAN was by an experienced editor
  • GA pass was by another experienced editor who did roll the GAN into AH, but failed to remove the GA pass template.
  • Mike Christie came along to repair faulty GA links (a separate matter and a BIG problem on talk pages caused by GA process being out of sync with every other process)

That's all for now, but a combo of inaction by experienced editors and well-intentioned but faulty bot edits are making the articlehistory something that will be very difficult for future bots to fix and creating a problem that did not exist in the past, when GimmeBot got it all, without leaving pieces out that later had to be re-ordered in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• A class is handled by the MilHist Project's MilHistBot and not the FACBot, although I maintain them both and they share a code base. The MilHistBot never had instructions to add anything to the article history except for the A class assessment result. It was simple enough to add this functionality though, with two additional instructions:

my $article_history = new MilHist::ArticleHistory ('parser' => $parser);
    $article_history->add_action ('WAR', '~~~~~', $assessment, $result, $revision);
    
    $article_history->merge (); # Merge in the DYK, ITN, OTD and GAN templates, if any, and
    $article_history->sort ();  # Sort ArticleHistory elements into chronological order

• I have implemented this change this morning, and A class will merge the DYK, ITN, OTD and GAN templates into the ArticleHistory template from now on. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:25, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  Hawkeye7 awesome ... how about the occasional AFD ?? If we can get everyone on the same page, and then get one bot to process all the old GA and FailedGA templates, then it should be much simpler to code one bot to do everything else. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  The ArticleHistory module also handles PR and AFD, but not {{Old Afd multi}} at present. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:26, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Noting: about 90% of the problems in this group were MilHistbot and A-class reviews. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:46, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Including, apparently, every single article I've recently taken to A-Class that isn't a FA. Hog Farm _Talk 00:56, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes ... the problem here was MilHist bot creating AH without rolling in GAN/DYK, etc. But only a few more to correct, and then Hawkeye7 has fixed the script, so this problem goes away. If the rest of the problems I've identified can be fixed, then it will be easier to write a bot to do what Gimme used to, so I'm chipping away at them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:24, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

By the way, the reason that many others that *are* FAs and FFAs aren't showing up on the Petscans is that I've been going through them manually *for* *years* doing the post-bot cleanup on FACs, FARs, and TFAs. We have errors being created in articlehistory by bot and multitudes of experienced users who aren't cleaning them up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:35, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

To do next

Petscan for FailedGA outside of AH SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 17 April 2023 (UTC)  Done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:36, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

And PR

And 348 Old peer review not built in to AH; writing a bot would be much easierr if all the old issues were cleaned out first-- if AH had been properly maintained in the years since Gimme left, there would be no need to re-order actions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:45, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

To fix

Mike Christie have a look at Talk:Problematic social media use; I'm not sure how to best fix that to accommodate your GA stats. The second GA was appended on to the first GA (and neither of them are even "real" GANs). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:55, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Another for you, Mike:

• Talk:Organ transplantation in China/GA2 appears to be actually a faulty GAR ... not sure how to build that in to AH. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Another for you, Mike:

• talk:Lacrosse

There are actually four GANs; do your stats work if they are left as is and GA2 rolled in to AH? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:38, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I think the main thing I'd say is to fix AH in whatever way makes the most sense; I haven't been too fussed about the stats missing odd cases. For problematic social media use, I'd just treat that as a single GA -- just because someone tacked on some extra comments doesn't force us to create an event to accommodate it. The organ transplantation one is weird, but it's structured as a GAN and I think there's no percentage in actualling reading 58,000 GAN pages to find out if they should be redefined; we should just leave it as a GAN.

The way the stats work is that I ran them up to a certain date, a month or two ago, and am not going back, except that the bot searches for moves of GA pages and reprocesses those cases (because (a) that might fix a mismatch that meant the GA was unfindable and (b) I want the stats to correctly track the GAs with regard to their current pages). So if you fix these, it won't change the stat unless I reprocess them. I might do that just to see if it cleans them up a bit, but it won't be soon as I want to get some other work done on the bot first. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:25, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Great, Mike; got all those done, 19 more to go. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

GA bookkeeping

Further information: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-03-24/Dispatches

And after all those errors are fixed, at least 6,000 GAs that have other process templates for which no bot has built articlehistory. More than ten years after we had a bot that Did Everything. Ridiculous. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

What caused GimmeBot to stop editing? Could we ask the bot operator to start it back up, or to provide us with the source code for task 2 so that someone else can start it up? I see the bot operator edited a month ago so might respond if we ask. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

If Gimme wanted to start this task again, he would have done so by now. What caused him to stop editing was incessant hounding by one of Wikipedia's most prolific sockmasters, who was aided and abetted by other socks and sock supporters and not deterred by certain arbs. That history ended up telling itself, but only after FAC was destroyed. Considering how Gimme was treated, I would never pretend to ask him to give anything back, because some of those doing the mistreating were the very prima donnas the bot served. And to tie a nice bow around that steaming pile, when I was FAC delegate, I frequently had to implore the regulars to thank Gimme for the work he did to keep the starred talk pages in shape (and he did EVERYTHING ... all talk pages of GAs and FAs were clean ... yet when a bevy of socks came after him, no one who benefitted stood up). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:28, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Sandy, did I do this manual GA article history cleanup correctly? Maybe not the nicest of me to rapid fail the same article at GAN twice in about 2 months, but I tried to clean up article history the second time. Hog Farm _Talk 23:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Very nice, Hog Farm; I keep hoping if people see me around cleaning up talk pages, they'll get the hint ... and now someone has! Looks good to me. The idea is that if the template action items are consistently sorted as they are in the documentation at {{Article history}}, the thing will be more readable, more logical, more consistent and start to make more sense to more of the "regulars" (GA, FAC, FAR, ITN, PR, etc). Who will then know how to fix issues themselves.

Separately, there are some folks over at talk page layout who insist Vital article should be moved up, while I think it belongs in the WikiProject Banner Shell, so I usually leave them where I find them. Cleaning up something I think doesn't even belong there is not my mission :)

But the AH part is perfect; thanks so much! Ping me anytime you want a doublecheck on article history. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

PS not listed works the same as failed on GAN result, and feels less ickey to me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:55, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

AH and GA

Sandy, I saw your latest ping. The GA instructions currently say to leave the {{GA}} template on the talk page and don't mention AH, so that's what I've been doing. I know AH is preferable, but I was under the impression someone was developing a bot to roll everything in to AH, so I figured that meant there was no harm in not building AH as it would get done later. I have looked at getting ChristieBot to do it, but it's a big job and I'm not sure I want to take that on -- it's a lot harder than what ChristieBot currently does. I don't think there would be support for changing the GA instructions to mention AH, since that's a lot more complicated than just pasting in the GA template. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 07:22, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Yep ... I'm trying to raise awareness that there is no bot, and there is no bot in development, and there are over 6,000 GAs that are not built in to articlehistory. I'm trying to at least keep up with those in the petscan queries at User:SandyGeorgia/ToDo. Yes, we need someone to replace Gimmebot to do everything, instead of the incomplete mess we have now with three or four different bots doing different things, but no one bot doing it all. I agree that you wouldn't get support to add AH to GA instructions, since anyone can pass a GA and few editors understand AH, but I'm pretty sure that most experienced editors are keeping up with AH. At least, experienced editors who submit articles to GA should at least be maintaining their talk pages themselves ... it astounds me that experienced GA and FA writers don't care when their talk pages are a bloody mess. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:10, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I thought 0xDeadbeef was planning a general AH cleanup bot? Per their comment further up this page? For myself I have to say I mostly ignore talk page header messes; I think they can be untidy but they don't bother me, perhaps because I never work on them -- I never do ratings or look at them, or add project banners or notices, so my eye just skips over them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:37, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I have been quite busy recently so development is pretty much stalled. I will take a look at this next week and try to make some progress. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 11:41, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

But even if OxDeadBeef can do a general cleanup, what about ongoing and rolling in everything as GimmeBot used to do ?

It's curious to me that some editors of top content don't worry about talk page messes, and I suspect (but wonder ???) if that's part of the luxury of working on pages that get few views or little feedback on talk ... which is the opposite of my experience with high traffic medical articles and pages (like schizophrenia or J. K. Rowling)), [4] where talk pages really benefit from being kept tidy.

Although the biggest single issue affecting talk page clutter (since the student editing templates were dealt with) isn't articlehistory items-- it's those pointless GA and DYK transclusions, which are duplicates of info already in AH. Thx OxDEADBEEF for the help! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:00, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Should we get a bot to start dealing with all the GA templates unincorporated into {{Article history}}, and once the "Vital" article mess on talk pages is cleaned up, my next WP:TPL matter is to ask that the duplicate GA and DYK transclusions on talk be removed when those are processed into Article history. SilkTork what say ye; do you agree these are the next biggest source of unnecessary talk page clutter? If PR, FAC, and FAR don't trasclude reviews to talk, why does the GA process need to clutter talk with one editor's opinion (which is not always relevant or useful), when that info is already easily accessed via the article history template? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:20, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

0xDeadbeef, thanks for working on it; I know it's a big job but it would be a major help if/when you can get it done. Sandy, I completely agree with removing those transclusions -- it doesn't even need to wait for AH, since there's a link from the GA template already. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:41, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Mike, there has been pushback in the past when I have routinely removed them, so I'm going to wait for the "Vital" mess to be cleaned up before pursuing this next step at WP:TPL. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:43, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

The transcluding has been part of the process in GA since I first got involved, though back then it had to be done manually. I've never given it much thought - perhaps it was considered better to have the discussion in a more visible location because it is an audit that is largely (though not exclusively) done by just two people - the nominator and the reviewer. Having the active discussion more visible would invite others to contribute if they could see mistakes being made, or something overlooked.

But once a review has been completed, and it has been placed in the Article History template, then there is no imperative need to keep the GA review transclusion on the talkpage. When I archive talkpages I don't copy over GA transclusions, nor do I copy over those External links modified posts. But I wouldn't set out to delete either of them unless I am archiving.

I do agree that where a transclusion is not already in Article History, then it would be very helpful to have a bot do that. SilkTork (talk) 12:48, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

It appears that there are no current pages that have both article history and GA. I think I will try rolling in {{Old peer review}} as a task that could make it easier to add support for {{GA}} in the future. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 08:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

0xDeadbeef that is because I have been following the four petscan queries at User:SandyGeorgia/ToDo and staying on top of those. Is it preferable that I stop doing those so you can have some test cases to work on ? My broader point has been that there is no bot rolling in everything; that is, AFD, old pr, and the 6,000 + GAs that don't fall in to the OxDeadbeef bot petscan query (by already having other templates on the page). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, optimally it should go through every talk page and roll in if there are two or more templates that could be covered by article history. I'm more trying to do a gradual expansion of the functionality of the bot, so if you want to continue go for it. I'll let you know if I want to test the bot on GA templates. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 01:32, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Osteopathic medicine in the United States

Osteopathic medicine in the United States has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.

Would appreciate your input. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Lovely, one of those gifts that keep on giving? At first glance, 15 years later, still giving! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)