Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:55, 11 January 2014

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 100 as User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch99 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

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.

QOL followup

Note to self, from WP:ENI for followup:

• Migraine Specific Quality of Life
• Asthma Life Impact Scale
• Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/The Living with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (LCOPD) questionnaire
• The Quality of Life Assessment of Growth Hormone Deficiency in Adults Measure
• Ankylosing Spondylitis Quality of Life

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

GERAC

Hi SG, you said at WT:MED that you voted to delete GERAC because it was a WP:COATRACK. GERAC was the first major study to find that sham and verum acu were equivalent (which many, though not all, subsequent trials have also found). What do you believe is coatrack-ish about the article? thanks, Middle 8 (talk) 01:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks like you're not going to reply, which is fine. Nobody else seems to be able to answer this question either, least of all the originator of the argument, cf. the bottom of this discussion: Talk:German_acupuncture_trials#Threaded_discussion. The coatrack notion was based on a misreading of GERAC and sources therein. Cheers. --Middle 8 (talk) 20:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Middle 8 When you're referencing discussions that happened in November, links are helpful. I've looked at the article (which has significantly improved since the mid-November versions which were problematic), have tried to decipher or sort out some of the bad grammar and redundant prose, and still believe there is nothing said there that wouldn't be better incorporated into a Society and culture section of the main acupuncture article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Bad content

Hey Sandy, if you're looking for examples of bad content, have a browse through the history of cluster headache, from last July and backwards. Yecch! — Scott • talk 16:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey, Scott Martin; I'd be most appreciative if you did that work and presented the diffs and issues on the talk page of the RFC, where I will work it in to the examples on the RFC. IRL COI makes that one too hard for me to research, and reading it will disturb me (BTDT kind of pain with family members, don't want to go there again :)) And thanks for everything! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah, tough times. Well, I'm happy to; I'll get back to you. And, it's been a pleasure - I'm enjoying working towards something to hopefully produce some positive change in this project, which is sorely lacking in ethics in many areas. — Scott • talk 16:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Please be gentle there, Scott, and try to educate them on the talk page - if that isn't happening already. Though the edits they're making are inappropriate and must be ripped out on sight for now, it's possible something about that work can be (very cautiously and full of caveats per WP:MEDRS) mentioned. It's bedtime here and I have just noticed this so don't have time to look carefully. I'll try to get to it tomorrow.

I love this quote from the forum: "oh, and it looks like my changes showed up right away... That's sorta scarry that anyone can make changes to those docs on wikipedia." Should we point them to the RFC? Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, that's just lovely. I'd add a {{recruiting}} tag to talk. I'll watchlist. Ugh. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I've registered for the forum, but haven't received confirmation yet. I'll try engage them there. 'Night. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Well. I read this last night and immediately thought "aha, that explains a lot!". After going through their thread I immediately unblocked ThatHurtsMyHead and reached out to them by leaving him a detailed message - it seems to have gone down quite well. See this post on the forum where he's copied it across. Hopefully we won't be seeing any more disruption on that article from well-meaning but inexperienced editors. — Scott • talk 11:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh my, that is going to require some sustained attention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Five hours in, still have 20 sources to check, and this article makes my head hurt and my butt hurt. Terrible, repetitive prose, boatloads of primary sources, outdated reviews, and a general mess all-round. So, I'm only making a preliminary pass at this stage, so Anthony and others can go at it more later. Twenty more sources to get through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

{Yawn). I've just completed my daily obeisance at the little shrine I've built to you. I'll get some breakfast and take a look. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Big mess in there ! All I did was flag sources. You're on! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Holy moly, you really went for it! I had a brief poke around the article's history last night to look for particular content issues but actually found it quite overwhelming - my ability to distinguish bad medical content is pretty much limited to spotting uncited original research and obvious quack stuff. On the other hand, you might appreciate this post on that cluster headaches forum:

On CH.com I just read a post (titled LSD) where a person is saying "A friend told me he read about it in Misplaced Pages (!) as a way to stop attacks for 3 months, and thought I should look into it."

A perfect example of normal people in the real world taking our content seriously.... — Scott • talk 11:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

That post is here: (that is, we have clusterbusters.com and clusterheadaches.com). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Scott Martin, it used to be the case that whenever a rash of new accounts showed up on a medical condition, one could easily find the message board support group forum where the recruiting occurred. Now, with so many Misplaced Pages hits, mentions and mirrors, it's much harder to find them. (In fact, how did you find that, Anthonyhcole?)

Scott, I'm off for the day, won't be able to get any work done on the CH article today, but you might want to mine the search engine at the cluster(nospace)headaches(nospace).com message board forum for hits on Misplaced Pages (can't link you there-- it's blacklisted, no surprise, tons of hits to Misplaced Pages, most likely not good) for more examples of misinfo on Misplaced Pages or of how dangerous Misplaced Pages can be. CH is precisely the kind of article where, yea, people take our content seriously and make life-altering decisions based on it, and the kind of topic that flies under the radar of most editors, but certainly not of people suffering in pain. With such acute pain, there is the same kind of desperation one saw in autism parents who firmly believed vaccines had caused their child's autism, or PANDAS had caused their child's tics, and would resort to things like chelation therapy, which killed children. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

It was 4 terms from one of the newbies' edits in Google, and that forum was the top result - but I can't remember which terms. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Sandy - there really is a pile of it... I imagine that pretty much any forum for (self-diagnosed or otherwise) sufferers of a medical condition is pretty much the same. Incidentally, a post there led me to Neural therapy - that's a pretty, um, special article. — Scott • talk 22:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Yikes yes! I'm having a go at cleaning-up Neural therapy; it was indeed ... special. Alexbrn 06:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Alexbrn, just looked, nice cleanup. Scott Martin, it's not possible to keep up with all the bad content in here. When you fix one, you find three more. Disclaimer! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I've semi'ed Neural therapy for 3 months and am happy to semi any more that have been heavily degraded or bombarded. Probably better if I have an editor rather than an admin hat on for the psych ones I s'pose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Next

• Case in point: big issues at Psilocybin; see talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• "please reassure me I don't have to check all the shroomy articles for MEDRS" Actually, I'd like you to check them all, if it helps to make the articles better! p.s. the trainwreck that is Medicinal mushrooms isn't my doing :) Sasata (talk) 23:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I know the medicinal mushrooms article is better than it used to be... but I'm still so tempted to just stub the whole thing. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Hah! I too was going (with a weary sigh) to mention Medicinal mushrooms (and Polysaccharide-K and maybe the ongoing new article spree). Checking back on how bad the PSK-boosting was I stumbled into Cancer immunotherapy#Natural products -- which brings us right back to the topic of bad medical content: check-out the bogus cancer cure info I removed from there. Alexbrn 07:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Um, I was busy IRL for only a day-and-a-half, but that was enough to really fall behind; I need time to catch up, but we still have a problem with the whole psilocybin situation. I owe Sasata a response, but am still working through the sources and finding how many other articles we have that reflect this problem. It is beyond just cluster headache (those folks did us a favor by bringing this to our attention), and I'm not sure where to coordinate the discussion (it's an issue of MEDRS v UNDUE, because we have studies of ... seriously ... nine patients, not reflected in any broad overviews of the condition, or interviews conducted with no kind of control getting brief mention in secondary reviews in the psychedelic literature but not in broader reviews about the conditions -- and we have similar in several articles).

I will need most of today to catch up with all of you here, but I am reminded of the situation where a class wanted to insert evolutionary considerations in numerous articles about conditions based on specific low-impact evolutionary reviews, when those theories had gained no traction in the broader literature about those conditions. In those cases, Jfdwolff was able to provide information about the dubious quality of the low-impact journals, and demonstrate that the theories had gained no traction outside of those narrow reviews ... so, we are going to need to look at all the places where we are claiming psilocybin has effect on X condition, based on very weak secondary reviews, small studies, low-impact journals, etc. MEDRS does not tell us we must include something that may be UNDUE just because it's in a secondary review-- MEDRS tells us to access the quality of the evidence. I'm still looking for one overview of OCD that mentions psilocybin treatment (haven't found it), and as far as I can tell, the significance of those psilo studies (even on cluster headache) is not whether the treatment is effective (we just don't have the evidence to be saying that), but what the response to psilocybin can reveal about underlying causes. I guess, considering this info is in several articles, the discussion may need to be coordinated at WT:MED, but I want to finish reading the sources.

Alexbrn, is neural therapy dealt with? Kevin Gorman, long time no see!

Jmh649, I see you dealt with obsessive-compulsive disorder, but the problem is also at mydriasis, based on the reviews I've read so far, I think even the mention of psilo we now have at cluster headache may be undue, also at Olney's lesions, placebo-controlled study, psychedelic therapy, and psychedelic mushroom. I haven't gotten close to finding all occurrences yet-- would appreciate help.

Separately to Sasata, I owe you an apology-- a sincere one :) I will catch up over there once I've read all the sources, but one of the reviews is not flagged in PubMed as a review; that sometimes happens, but I failed to pick it up this time. When I saw so much text cited to something that I didn't recognize as a review, plus old reviews, plus a primary source, combined with "vetted at FAC", my "nothing is ever vetted at FAC" adequately lately red flags went off. For many years, "vetted at FAC", has meant that if we're lucky, three or four editors looked at the article, and not necessarily the issues raised. I apologize for being ridiculously over-snippy with you about promising a FAR because I thought you had used primary sources-- I still believe we have an UNDUE problem, but we don't have a FAR issue-- we have a content dispute in an area over which reasonable people can disagree, and I have every expectation that we'll sort through it and consensus will emerge. Of course, the concern surfaced because we saw how this information is being used on a support group message board, and the sources I've read so far are very clear that they are talking about psilo administration in a very controlled environment-- our text isn't conveying that, and we have internet folk doing what worries us most-- using Misplaced Pages as a source for treatment decisions.

My sincere apologies, Sasata for a very poor attitude towards one of our best contributors. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Neural therapy is now okay so far as I am concerned. Alexbrn 17:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I never disappear forever! The holidays are just always exceptionally busy for me - this is one of the first times in weeks I haven't had three dozen family members around at the same time. Cleanup of residual crap from fall semester medical classes is slated to occupy my third week of January, btw. It feels weird that I've gotten to the point of actually scheduling Misplaced Pages committments.... Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Sandy. I was a bit miffed with your MEDRS tagging, as I've worked hard on the article to bring it into (and keep it in) good shape. I thought after the GA review by Looie496, the rigorous peer review, feedback from WP:MED members specifically about MEDRS issues before FAC, and finally the FAC grilling by you (a good grilling, I'm not complaining!), that the article was MEDRS complaint. Moving on ... "I'm still looking for one overview of OCD that mentions psilocybin treatment". How's this? I've removed two of the primary sources you had previously tagged.

Re: "the sources I've read so far are very clear that they are talking about psilo administration in a very controlled environment-- our text isn't conveying that"

please note the presence of these statements already in the article:

• "the authors note, however, that the safety of the drug "cannot be generalized to situations in which psilocybin is used recreationally or administered under less controlled conditions.""
• "Although other researchers have described instances of psychedelic drug usage leading to new psychological understandings and personal insights, it is not known whether these experimental results can be generalized to larger populations."
• "The pilot study found that, when administered by trained professionals in a medical setting,"

I'm happy to discuss further improvements. Sasata (talk) 17:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Getting better, Sasata, that helps ... one of the several reasons that my FAR response was so ridiculous is that I know you can be trusted to deal with anything that comes up. Let me finish reading some more sources, then will get back to you ... not sure where, though, because again, we have issues in multiple places ... let me see what all I find as I read. And thank you for the gracious acceptance of my apology. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Sasata, I apologize for multiple, conflicting responses (this is why I need to catch up :) I've now looked carefully at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3181958/ and it confirms my concern. There was a study of nine patients. We've heard nothing of this in serious OCD reviews. The source you list has one sentence about it, and that sentence says ... pretty much nothing. Compare that to the rest of what the source discusses, and you may see my concern that we are giving this UNDUE attention, even if mentioned in secondary reviews. I have as yet found nothing from a serious OCD review that looks at this study, and reporting a treatment option based on nine patients gives me serious pause. In some of the literature, it is specifically pointed out that these reactions may give us clue to etiology, but we're using the sources in ways that are causing people to experiment with psilo for treatment-- the source you listed does not ease my concern-- it increases it, since the review pointedly has nothing to review ... it is one sentence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• One has to understand the context behind the study... "The first clinical study of psilocybin approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) since 1970". I imagine they were lucky to get n=9 approved for what has been such a controversial drug. I agree that mentioning psilocybin in the OCD article would be undue, but it is not undue in the psilocybin article (indeed, if the study were not mentioned, that would be a failing of WIAFA 1b "it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context". I'm not sure why the 2010 Kellner review is not a "serious OCD review"; is there a helpfile to help me determine whether a secondary source is "serious" or not? Regarding "and reporting a treatment option" we are not reporting a treatment option, we are summarizing the results of study, and I think the article makes that clear. Sasata (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, that's the direction I'm heading (that is, what we might say at psilocybin is different than what we might say at cluster headache, obsessive-compulsive disorder, mydriasis, Olney's lesions, and then placebo-controlled study, psychedelic therapy and psychedelic mushroom. I'm concerned that we don't have good evidence/reviews to be saying anything in the individual conditions that is not UNDUE, and even at psilocybin, I'm worried that there are some things in the sources that we aren't making clear. But let me catch up and summarize before I continue wasting your time ... I got distracted by a refrigerator repairperson, and have made no progress since my last post.

  Oh, by serious review, I mean that review doesn't actually "review" that nine-patient study-- it only mentions it in passing, in one sentence, and makes no attempt to even analyze the strengths, weaknesses, methodology-- anything we would normally see in a good review. Although it isn't really appropriate for us to "original research" the primary study, I haven't yet read the primary study and don't even yet know what measure of symptom severity they used ... I'm pretty well familiar with OCD research because of the overlap with Tourette syndrome, I've never seen mention of psilo in OCD reviews, and I'm wondering (in the absence of a review that discusses the methodology) what the methodology was ... it would be optimal if we could find a review that actually reviews the psilo work. More later, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Sasata, my apologies again that it is taking me so long to catch up ... I cannot find the mention of psilo in Halker 2010 ???

• Halker R, Vargas B, Dodick DW. (2010). "Cluster headache: diagnosis and treatment". Seminars in Neurology 30 (2): 175–85. doi:10.1055/s-0030-1249226. PMID 20352587. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see it in there either; I've replaced this source with the 2011 Sun-Edelstein review. Sasata (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)The only mention in Kellner2010 was "Marked decreases of symptoms were observed shortly after single-dose exposures to the psychedelic drug psilocybin in patients with OCD.", with a citation to Moreno2006. That source certainly could not have supported the assertion made.LeadSongDog come howl! 21:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I am (ever so) slowly working my way through all the sources and finding, yes, we have issues here. I haven't yet gotten hold of the original study of nine OCD patients, but I did find mention that they were evaluated using the Yale-Brown scale (good), but it is unclear to me if the review is saying those results didn't endure.

I'd like to pull it all together in one place where we can all work towards consensus, which as mentioned above, is likely to be something different wrt what can be said at psilocybin and what should be said in articles about the conditions, considering due weight. I'm still concerned that we're giving undue weight everywhere. Most of what the review sources say amounts to ... old studies were done that showed <something> useful about cause and mechanism, but more studies are needed to determine if it was the associated process and psychotherapeutic setting, or actually the psychedelic that produced the effect.

But I'd also like to get my tree down ... I will try to put it all together in one place by tonight or tomorrow am. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

ICNB

Hi. I just want to let you know that in this article – Intercostal nerve block – I've spent a lot of effort. I mainly used the ′Lennard′ source, but I used some other sources from Google Books as well. I typed ′Intecostal nerve block′ in Google Books search and than I read some of the books' content and interpreted in the article with mentioning the source used in referenced. I had known the original books' pages, but I forgot to insert them. As for many sections I've used one book or other online source, I didn't want to get the articles' section overcrowded with only single reference so I avoided repeating the same references in some places. I have never inserted plagiarisms or close-parapharasings in any Misplaced Pages article, and those accusations bother me. I was originally planning to add 30% more content, improve the article to meet the GA criteria, and propose it, but your tagging the article with various templates majorly demoralised me for doing so. However, do you have any suggestions of how can I still improve the sourcing and content so the GA criteria is met? I mainly agree some that some books openly advocate this specific procedure, and I think that is the point of your referral of them as primary sources? Furthermore, I am open to remove or change the assertions based on MedCentral and some other clinics' citations. Also, can you tell me why is wrong using “” over "" as a quotation marks? If you're replying me here, please give me a note on my talk page. Thanks in advance! Alex 20:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Aleksa Lukic, your final question seems to refer to the use of curly quotes over straight quotes (see WP:MOSQUOTE. Since curly quotes are not generated by Wiki software, they are sometimes a tipoff to copyvio; the reason I mentioned that a close paraphrasing check is needed on the DYK is that the "voice" changes in the article, there are no page numbers supplied for verification, and the language in the article is at odds with your writing style. At any rate, a copyvio check is routinely requested at DYK.

As to getting the article to GA standard, a first step in the right direction would be adding page numbers on the book sources and removing the non-MEDRS sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

PANDAS

Hi, I wish to invite you to participate on a discussion which I have started on the PANDAS talk page. And the fact that we might have somewhat differing views might help the discussion and resulting article contributions be even better. https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:PANDAS "a variety of sources, including more readable sources?"

Generally I take the view that even though review articles may be our gold standard, they're not the only game in town. Cool Nerd (talk) 21:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

A G major for you!

Thank you for your quick and efficient work on "The sight of a touch, or the scent of a sound"!! It's pretty obvious that some editors have more neural connections than others... Martinevans123 (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Martinevans123 what a nice message! And we deserve a decent article, considering the amount of info available! Thank you! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Here is some nutritious protein to keep you going in your hard labors. You're an inspiration to less motivated editors ;-)

Lesion (talk) 02:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

very kind of you ... ah-choo! Thank you, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I don't think you are supposed to eat the skin... Lesion (talk) 17:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Sandy I recall you (and possibly also @Jmh649:?) have a copy of the DSM-V? Would you mind looking up "Olfactory reference syndrome" for me and seeing how it is classified? If possible, I would really appreciate also a straight copypaste of the content to Talk:Olfactory Reference Syndrome or somewhere else so I can reference it in the article... Many thanks if either of you can help with this. Lesion (talk) 17:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Email me. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Will do, many thanks, Lesion (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Lesion, I actually do not have a copy of DSM5; I only have a photocopy of the Motor Disorder chapter. If I did have a copy of the whole book, I'da fixed up quite a few articles by now! By the way, you have to take great care with paraphrasing when using DSM in our articles; the APA guards their copyright seriously, so take care not to replicate all of the criteria for a given condition, and take extra care with paraphrasing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Understood, don't word too closely. In this particular case, there is very little content on the page I am working on (olfactory reference syndrome) because it only mentions it in relation to another condition (Taijin kyofusho)... but I thought it needed to be updated because the article was previously talking about "upcoming plans in the DSM-5". Lesion (talk) 22:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Funny you should say, because I have ended up directly quoting from the DSM editions. I think there is no copyvio as long as we make clear it is a direct quote by using quotation marks and a reference. Lesion (talk) 18:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

That may last for a while, but if you quote too much, they will come after us-- someone explained to me once that they don't like having enough info "out there" that diagnoses can be based upon them by people who don't own the DSM. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Interesting... Lesion (talk) 18:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems/2010 March 9#DSM Complaint .28Ticket:2010030910040817.29; they're about due to roll through here again. In the last bout, even though one of my articles was absolutely clean, I got the big fat COPYVIO tag on it until the investigation was completed. As they say in investment banking, "the risk is yours". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that interesting insight. It seems, somewhat ironically, that psychiatry as a profession is pathologically paranoid, jealously guarding its secrets. Since that copyvio case related specifically to reproduction of diagnostic criteria, hopefully these text quotes will be ok. Actually they are are indirect quotes via 2 review papers, so if they complain to use they must also complain to those authors I would imagine... Lesion (talk) 18:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I can't say for sure, but my suspicion is that the motivation is more financial than pathological ... why would they want professionals to be able to avoid purchasing the DSM because they could find everything they needed online? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Re paranoia, I was also referring to the ink blot images thing we were just reminded of. Like ICD, I would want my classification to be used all over the world by everyone, and therefore facilitate open access to it. But then, I will never be rich =/ Lesion (talk) 19:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Spanish translation check?

SandyGeorgia, I recalled your offer regarding Spanish sources, and was hoping you would have time to look at the DYK nomination for Template:Did you know nominations/Prince of Wales F.C., or rather the translation of the two Spanish language sources, FN2 and FN6, for the article. It seems to me that the article text is making claims that the sources do not support, at least in the case of FN6—does it really support the statement that there were reports of the team withdrawing for the 1939–40 season? I've already had the creator tone down the FN2 claims (the article had said that players left Prince of Wales to form Jubilee), but I'm not sure that what's left doesn't overreach still.

The article has other issues, which I can handle since the sources are in English, but these I can't with surety, lacking sufficient knowledge of the language. (Google translate, and even looking up individual words in online Spanish–English dictionaries, can only get you so far.) Thanks for any help you can give. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations!

On what, you ask? On getting mentioned in The Daily Dot: All the fame of Essjay and none of the false credentials.

Also, as long as I'm here: you said you had a COI with regard to the James Heilman article, and that you would therefore not edit it. Does this mean you know Doc James in real life or something? Jinkinson talk to me 23:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Marijuana WP:RM close

In reverting Red Slash's edit, you cited "non-admin close, best have that reviewed" in your edit summary. Since you've asked for that to be done, could you initiate the process, please? I'm not sure how that would be done, especially as I was the nom and agreed with the outcome. You appear to be the one who's not satisfied. Msnicki (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I have raised the issue of the controversial close here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Wrong venue. To question the outcome of a WP:Requested move debate, you should request a WP:Move review. Msnicki (talk) 21:55, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

An insulting, bizarre, parodic redirect

https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Mythic_Writerlord made the following redirect -https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Not_getting_any&redirect=no Shouldn't something like this be against the rules? Does it break any rules and, if so, which ones?

Also, there seems to be an organized effort to take down the incel article from an influential blog http://theroguefeminist.tumblr.com/post/73004902766/this-may-be-a-very-weird-question-but-there-is-an MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 20:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

MalleusMaleficarum1486, Sorry, I've been busy-- looking now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

MalleusMaleficarum1586, I have raised the issue of the redirect here; I will look next at the recruiting, but I want to point out to you that the excessive volume of your posts on the AFD is not working in your favor. Admins who close AFDs are accustomed to recruiting and pile-ons by newly registered users and IPs. It will serve you better if you let uninvolved users decide how to best handle that redirect, and I will next have a look at the recruiting issue you've pointed out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, I see Jinkinson already added that URL to the AFD. Malleus, please trust the closing admin to sort out the recruiting issues; it happens all the time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)