Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:25, 9 March 2018

Archives

2006 · 2007 · 2008 · 2009 · 2010 · 2011 · 2012 · 2013–2015 · 2016–2017 · 2018 · 2019 · 2020 · FA archive sorting · 2021 · 2022 · 2023 Jan–Mar (DCGAR) · 2023 Apr–Aug · 2023 Aug–Dec · 2023 Seasons greetings · 2024 · 2025

I prefer to keep conversations together and usually respond on my talk page, so watch the page for my reply.

To leave me a message, click here.

There you are!

Hey, there you are! I'm delighted to see you! Bishonen | talk 22:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC).

I am always delighted to "see" you, dear Bishonen. Regardless, though, of how I miss interacting with my dearest friends here, I can only approach Misplaced Pages sporadically by firmly holding my nose against the stench of psychopathy and piss-poor content. I am not really here, just bothered (again) at how shoddy Misplaced Pages articles are. I may have lost my yahoo password, so now use gmail. I hope you are well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:41, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Glad to see your name around, Sandy. Hoping all is well with you and your family. ceranthor 20:08, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Ceranthor, how are things with you? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:19, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh, dear, Ceranthor, my edit summary was one letter off ... instead of re, I got ew ... nothing personal, just my usual typos~ 02:21, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey

Hi Sandy. Remember me? I used to be User:Jinkinson here. I'm that guy you had to keep reminding to follow MEDRS and stuff. I hope you stick around and keep improving medical articles. Every morning (there's a halo...) 18:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Everymorning, of course I remember you! I watched your editing improve and improve ... hope you are well! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:20, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Things

Yesterday was like the old days, but then its also stark as to how little has changed. You vocalised many thing I was stretching to say, but a very well made point was about null sets - diffs are suited to proving rather than disproving. Diffs are a particularly aggressive way to argue, dredging up old conversations so you can go gotya, and reinforce an adversarial, battleground mentality. And its compulsory apparently, on pain of a block! A sane person would run the hell away from this. For example you have done this. Ceoil (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, Ceoil, just because it is nuts in here, here's my the copyvio free of the latest love song with dear hubby ... happens that a very close personal friend wrote it. I hope you and LizKafka are well. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

You go girl!

You are right on. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 19:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

The New York Times was a major source supporting the content on Prostate Cancer screening. So weird. Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 21:45, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Prostate

You have brought a lot of emotion into this. A lot of our content in WP, everywhere in WP, needs updating and this is true for this topic as well. That is a valid thing to bring up always. But your stressing over and over that there is a bias here is pure bullshit and you have exhausted most of the sympathy I have for your situation.

The evidence is overwhelming that free use of PSA led to procedures that caused many men a lot of harm and wasted a great deal of money and time.

Things perhaps swung too far back against PSA but what actually happened in the era before the recommendations changed is simply reality.

We do not have good science to distinguish aggressive PC from indolent; PSA has been part of the problem leading to harm and waste.

Your behavior here has been awful and your editing here is more than awful since you are driving your own bias into the content and ignoring sources opposing what you wish were true.

As you know, people in your situation hammering our articles about autism is exactly why MEDRS was created. I understand that you actually lived through that and worked through it - something I respect enormously.

But if you cannot edit neutrally and behave in a way that honors what we try to do here, please stay away from this topic. Jytdog (talk) 18:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Jyt. Since we go way back, I think it advisable to avoid claiming "respect" while coming to my talk page to lodge easily verified false claims about my editing. You know I have scarcely been editing content, so claiming bias in my editing (along with respect) means I gotta call bullshit on an old friend. If you want to claim biased editing, provide a diff, and we'll go head-to-head on sources.

Don't patronize me or pull sexist overemotional overwrought woman editor claims on me-- I have been around here much too long to let that sort of thing get to me. That I don't do Gender Cop doesn't mean I don't recognize the issue when I see it.

I am sorry to hear that poor medical content in Misplaced Pages is not a concern for you; it is for me. It has always been a concern for me, and not just in prostate cancer. But you know this; nothing new. Our content is frequently dangerously wrong. And when it's medical, my opinion is that it matters more than on daisies, and I think it should be fixed as quickly as we are able (not by cursory runs through the lead by editors who aren't fully up on the content area).

Whenever multiple recent secondary reviews are ignored, based on no consensus or valid reasoning, bias results in any content area. But in the medical content area, that can create a deadly problem.

I have not driven ANY content into the articles, as I have scarcely edited them, and you know that quite well, because you have been around for my editing when I do undertake to fix an article. If I were editing this suite of articles (or I should say, if I had the time to edit them), I would have fixed the problems in a day. It is not hard to reflect controversy among multiple sources by including all the valid sources. As things stand now, weeks go by, and the articles aren't substantially changing.

I am sorry that I have exhausted you; your exhaustion could be addressed by perhaps stepping back from a topic that tires you? This topic does not tire me, because I understand it, and have spent two months now immersed in recent secondary reviews (which I can only access when I am actually at the hospital, and is part of what makes it hard for me to edit). I know it is hard to find yourself at a disagreement with someone who knows our guidelines, policies and medical editing as well as you do, but I usually manage to remain civil and polite, even with extenuating life circumstances. So please, let's keep it that way.

Jyt, you accused me of a specific poor edit summary on article talk, and have not yet answered my query about what the problem with an edit summary of "bias" is. Yes, I could have entered a longer edit summary explaining why it was bias, but the post itself did that. Please explain the problem with that edit summary; I would like to understand what the issue is. If you cannot, then please do not lodge unnecessarily emotional claims on talk. When I am trying to edit from an iPad (which will happen when I am sitting in a hospital waiting room), my edit summaries will be brief. They will never, though, say "fuck you". What is your objection to an edit summary of "bias" in a post that is explaining bias? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:56, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

References

1. * Once, in 12 years of editing, I called someone an asshole. He was.

I am not going to engage with this. I gave you my view, you will do as you will.

I have been reading the sources but have stayed away from editing so far, as what is going is a train wreck, and you are the engine driving it. Jytdog (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I think you know as well as I do that your statements are not true. Perhaps you can focus on dealing with the editors who aren't editing competently. Or worry, as I do, that we have almost no one who can or does edit competently.

Meanwhile, for the third time, you have not backed up your false claims about my editing, or retracted your statements that amount to calling me an overwrought woman because my husband has cancer, and you must know you have no valid reason to treat me that way. Here are my six edits to the article:

•  Done 2012 guidelines, updated, completely wrong content.
•  Not done Still biased, but I did not edit, I tagged. And when my legitimate and justified tag was removed, I have not yet reinstated it. Restraint on board.
•  Done Removed commercial sources, left text, tagged. You object? You can revert me and reinstate the commercial sources.
•  Not done For all your complaints about PSA screening, here is where you then should be working, Jytdog.
•  Done Doc James removed text yesterday which indicates that he may be editing too quickly again, since I had just supplied a source. Explained on talk. Reinstated, but rewrote to conform with source I had just provided on talk. Yet your complaint is with me, because I am relentlessly pointing out that Doc James edits too fast, without an in-depth understanding of the article.
•  Done Corrected someone else's too close paraphrasing. You object?

So, I have spoken up about some really bad articles, and some other editors are making really bad edits. That is somehow my fault? Shoot the messenger much?

Jyt, please ... what has happened to you? You are here basically attacking me for doing exactly what we are supposed to do on Misplaced Pages-- discuss controversial content on talk. And you were once a superbly helpful editor. Yes, this place can make people nuts-- but really? You know what I am going to do... calmly and politely point out when you are wrong, and then go back to being able to be friends. Can you? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I didn't write here lightly. I have no desire to harm you or write things that aren't true as I see them. I spoke plainly, which is what I do.

Again, articles get out-dated. Claiming there is bias is just bullshit. My saying that you are not in a place to be working on this neutrally has nothing to do with your being a woman - it would be true of anybody going through a personal crisis around something. That you even brought that makes me want to engage with you even less at this time. I will not be replying here further. Jytdog (talk) 20:10, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

allrighty then carry on as you will, but I feel pretty badly for you that these verifiably false claims are the best you can offer for collegial behavior ... and that you indicate no willingness to engage correctly on talk or consider sources that do not agree with your personal views. Not everyone is an enemy, Jyt. Take care there, I hope you will reconsider not your POV on this article, but your approach to collegial editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

• If you continue abusing the talk pages of the prostate articles as soap boxes and chat forums, I will seek a topic ban. I am now completely out of patience. Jytdog (talk) 20:21, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Jytdog, I urge you to step back and regain some perspective. You are unilaterally closing off active and helpful discussions on talk. Being hot-headed rarely ends well, can cloud judgment, and I value you as an editor in here. Perhaps you will think about your approach overnight, and reconsider? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:23, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Wishing you the best...

	Wishing you the best...
	So sorry to hear you're having medical issues. Will make an offering to Aesculapius in hopes that things improve soon. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

And if you need a shoulder to whine on, from someone that's been through the whole spouse-with-cancer-thing, I'm always around. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Ealdgyth dear ... I will fill you in when I am able, but for now, I have to give myself some safe spaces ... I compartmentalize my grief :) How are you? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:18, 9 March 2018 (UTC)