User talk:SandyGeorgia - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) at 04:01, 7 May 2012 (→Little issue to look at if you have time: little people get power from such little victories). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 04:01, 7 May 2012 by SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) (→Little issue to look at if you have time: little people get power from such little victories)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

About me

Talk to me

To do list

Tools and other
useful things

Some of
my work

Nice
things

Yukky
things

Hallmark

Thanks for helping out with Hallmark of Hall of Fame movie Front of the Classs. I couldn't get the image to work for me, but it's there now and that's what counts. Also thanks for finding more sources and filling the blanks, such as summaries and plots. That's not my kind of thing. I was surprised no other user took the time to make a movie link, when Front of the Class was first announced. Especially since there's so much information out there now for Hallmark movies.

Your help is really appriciated. GiantTiger001 (talk) 07:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Ack! Thanks for the reminder that I was interrupted by Wikidrahmaz just as I was intending to expand that article from the sources. And thanks for getting the ball rolling. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

advice requested

Hi,

I'm contacting you because I've seen your comments about articles and the Education Program.

I've come across an inadequate GA review of a psychology article Joint attention that's part of the Education Program.

The entire GA review is: "Looks fine. The lead may be a liitle long. You may consider moving some of the more detailed information in the lead to lower sections to further improve it."

There was no response from the nominator and the article was passed. I'm not a medical person and I'm not able to access most of the sources, but I did point out problems I saw with the article. And pointed out that it should follow WP:MEDRS and not source human info with animal sources. (19 of the citations are to animal articles.)

I also tagged the article which the reviewer reverted and then I reverted his revert. He said he would accuse me of disruptive editing and he probably will, so I don't want to get into trouble.

My question: should I just forget this? (I admit that since it is an Education Program article, I think it should get a proper GA review.) Or should I attempt to review it myself according to Misplaced Pages:Reviewing good articles?

I'm not completely confident that I know enough to review this article (the WP:MEDRS part and what seems like OR and synth). What do you think? Do you think my points have any validity? Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 19:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Oopsie, I've been busy, and am sorry for missing this. These education projects are an ongoing nightmare. I see the GA failed. Really, checking for reviews or primary sources is just a matter of knowing your way around PubMed-- there's a link at the bottom of every abstract that tells you what kind of paper each is, and there's a link at the upper right that will take you to review articles on the search topic. Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches is helpful; let me know if I can give you more info. Basically, we shouldn't be stringing together primary sources (original studies) to come to conclusions, which should come from secondary reviews (identified in Pubmed as a review, but not always identified correctly). There are very few occasions when we should use primary studies, although sometimes they are warranted or unavoidable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey guys - just a personal preference here, but I have MUCH better luck with Google Scholar than with PubMed, at lleast in MY area of expertise (rare lung cancers). Check it out if you like. Just a little tidbit of FYI. Caveat Emptor: I'm a relative newbie. Best of luck, and best regards:Cliff (a/k/a "Uploadvirus") (talk) 05:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

With Google scholar, it's not always apparent if articles are secondary reviews, so you then have to take the title and search PubMed, which is a timesink. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Mysore FAR

Hi Sandy, can you please have a look at the FAR and comment? Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I will try (struggle!) to find time for this next week. I peeked at the FAR, and the only thing I could add now is not to pin any hopes on the GOCE-- they are generally pretty useless, although it depends on who shows up. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Tuberculosis

I am working on getting this article to GA. Wondering if you are interested in helping as I see you where a major contributor in the past.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Doc ... Tim Vickers and I worked our arses off on that article several times, and because it's a popular topic, it always gets hit by unhelpful edits/editors. Are you sure it's worth the effort? It was featured, reviewed, defeatured after Tim Vickers became less active, and I fear that unless you have the time to watch it 24/7, it will be difficult to keep in shape. Tim was the brains behind the FAR-- I just did cleanup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi

Sorry, the diacritics proposal is at WT:BLP#BLP diacritics guideline proposal discussion In ictu oculi (talk) 21:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Pontocerebellar hypoplasia and sources

Hello SandyGeorgia! I've been advised (off the wiki) to contact you with regard to a question concerning the article I posted in the subject link. It mentions its source as a Medical Journal called "The American Journal of Human Genetics" - and I'm not sure if the source is an actual published report, an outline, a synopsis, or whether the journal is even classed as a reputable source. I was told you might be able to help, so any assistance would be warmly appreciated. Thank you. MarkBurberry32|talk 23:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Mark ... I'm confused if I've answered the right question, because I don't see you as the editor of that article? At any rate, I've updated the citation there to include PubMed identifier, and added two new sources to establish notability of that topic, one of which is a secondary review. I've also added some links on talk there that explain medical sourcing guidelines on Misplaced Pages and how to work in PubMed: the article should be written mostly from the secondary review. You can tell what kind of source you're dealing with in PubMed by:

Click on the PMID link
Scroll down to the bottom where you see "Publication type" and expand it by clicking on the plus sign
There you will find info like Review, comparative study, case report, etc.

Since I'm not sure if I'm answering the question you're asking, I'll give you more feedback after I hear from you ... Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sandy. Just to clarify, I'm not the editor of that article - I'm relatively new on Misplaced Pages (3 days), and I'm busying myself with tasks that I can manage. One of those is New Page Patrol, where this article came to my attention. I wasn't sure, looking at the source at the bottom, whether the Journal mentioned in it was valid as a reliable source, or whether others would be needed to back it up. I didn't tag it for needing other sources, but asked how I could verify whether it was reliable enough to be used (i.e, Peer reviewed material) - I asked in #wikipedia-en about it, and Demiurge1000 suggested I asked you for your opinion on whether it could be classed as reliable. Thank you for the assistance up to now though, as a learner, I appreciate any advice I can get. MarkBurberry32|talk 23:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome-- starting at New Page Patrol is a tough place to start! NPP is tough even on me ... one thing is whether sources are reliable; another thing is whether they are primary, secondary or tertiary sources, and how each of those types of sources can be used. The source that was there was a primary source-- a study unreviewed by secondary sources. Sometimes those may establish notability, sometimes not. In this case, the article is notable (I found a secondary review), the secondary review should have been used to cite that text (the text is cited incorrectly-- there is a secondary review that should be used), but as a New Page Patroller, you're not concerned as much with correct sourcing, as you are with establishing notability. If you're unsure, go to PubMed, enter the article name, and see what's there. Feel free to ask me anytime you need help. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Lady this & that

Don't ask me how I came across this, but in the John Crofton article that you recently edited, his wife is referred to as "Lady Eileen Crofton". This form ("Lady + ) is reserved for the daughters of dukes, marquesses and earls, e.g. "Lady Jane Grey". The wife of a mere knight is correctly known as "Lady ", thus "Lady Crofton". Since in this case the title is irrelevant you could just call her "Elaine Crofton". (I am hugely knowledgeable on the formalities of British titles, in addition to other less useful talents, so advice in this respect is always available.) I'm glad to see you're still active; if ever you need a review, please drop me a line. Brianboulton (talk) 14:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Brian ... I pinged Malleus's talk, asking someone to look at titles in that article, and the "Lady" came from the source. I'll take it out, but because it's in the source, someone might readd it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Callous Unemotional Traits edits

Hello,

I am the author that initially submitted the page on Callous and Unemotional Traits that you recently edited. I was unclear on what some of your comments meant, such as being overly reliant on primary sources, and asserting statements of fact, and was hoping you could explain how this is problematic, so that the page can be edited if necessary. The tone and structure of the article was taken from the pages of numerous other disorders such as schizophrenia and autism, which use almost entirely primary sources to explain the current level of understanding of the disorders. The article was written by a class of college students (of which I was the professor) who did extensive research and cross evaluation of citations to ensure accurate representation of published works on this topic, which certainly merits inclusion on Misplaced Pages. I can assure you that neither I nor any of my students wrote this with the intention of advocating a position on this topic. However, the potential inclusion of this disorder in the DSM is currently a highly relevant aspect of this topic, and the views presented here are merely representations of how this might influence the public understanding of CU traits.

As this disorder is on the verge of inclusion in the DSM-V and currently has no presence on Misplaced Pages other than this page, I strongly hope that the page is not recommended for deletion, and is rather edited to the point where it meets Misplaced Pages standards, if necessary.

As a first-time Wiki contributor, I hope this posting is not out of line, and that it is understood that it is written only with the hopes of clarification and edification from the recipient.

Thank you.

Sperrycogpsych (talk) 21:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Let's start by first reviewing your understanding of what a primary source is. What leads you to believe that autism uses "almost entirely primary sources to explain the current level of understanding"? Perhaps if we can sort out your misunderstanding there, we can move forward more quickly. Looking at just the first few sources in autism:

1. Caronna PMID 18305076 a review; cited six times.
2. APA, cited for the diagnostic criteria, twice (it's OK to use a primary source in that case).
3. Levy PMID 19819542 a review, cited eight times.
4. Johnson PMID 17967920 a review, cited four times.
5. Abrahams PMID 18414403 a review, cited four times.
6. Arndt PMID 15749245 a review, cited three times.

That is, in the first 27 citations, we find two are not review sources, and that appropriately cites the APA for the DSM criteria for the diagnosis. If you know of a primary source other than that in autism, please point it out.

By the way, per WP:MSH, the article needs to be moved to Callous and unemotional traits, and section headings adapted throughout to remove unnecessary uppercase (which I have done).

Also, the article is in no danger of being deleted: it meets notability. The problem is the inappropriate use of primary sources versus secondary reviews. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I have just created a new list Callous-Unemotional Traits (CUT) 9 review articles. And you might also like to browse the Handbook of Psychopathy dolfrog (talk) 11:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Dolfrog ... I hadn't gotten around to following your lesson for doing that. Some of the other sources used are also reviews that don't turn up on that list, but most sources used are primary sources, and of more concern, they are used to assert strong conclusions that leads to POV. Since there are so many reviews, the article needs a rewrite to refocus on what reviews say about primary studies, but since most of the writing is from Frick, once that is done, I'm concerned about attributing those opinions to him. Dolfrog, I see you had to do insane amounts of work in there after a bot-precursor stripped the citations and then never replaced them ... I dropped that editor a note. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

so

Since we're presumably both interested in making sure that the fairly obvious problems of medical classes this semester don't reoccur, is there any chance we can cut the bullshit that has occurred on that page so far and get to cooperatively figuring out how to ensure that it doesn't reoccur? I've directly answered every question you've actually asked in good faith, and have no idea why you've reacted in the way you have other than a misguided assumption that I'm staff or something. Can we - in the interests of avoiding a recurrent clusterfuck - ignore the first 80% of that page and move forward? (And again, just as a note: I agree with you that it's a significant problem that classes editing medical articles don't understand our medical sourcing standards) Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I do see your tone has improved, I hope mine has, and I don't see any reason we can't put that behind us and forget about it to move forward ... unless, that is ... you're still believing the meddlesome comments from TheEd17, who found himself in the unfortunate position of covering up when a fellow editor called Bishonen (talk · contribs) a bitch, with subsequent interaction on the matter causing her to turn in her tools and pretty much leave Misplaced Pages. I hope his POV on that isn't what led to some of the history between us, and if so, I hope we can move on regardless. And I also think some of the problems there had to with board start-up issues. I appreciate that you took the time to try to sort this-- I have wanted to do so sooner with you, but since you removed my last post from your talk, I didn't think I was welcome there. Regards,SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I cut your last post from my talk because it was unclear who it was aimed at. I have no idea (and honestly don't really care) about the background between you and ed - and being unaware of it, it was unclear whether it was a barb aimed at him, or a barb aimed at me. Given some of your other communication to me at that point, I assumed it was a barb aimed at me. You are welcome to post on my talk page, I just remove things that look like personal barbs. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't aimed at you (in fact, I wished you well); I've avoided trying to sort this sooner with you because he was likely to meddle. No, I didn't think you were staff after you cleared that up at AFD-- I'm more frustrated that I have no way of knowing who is, who's "in charge", and why those who are showing up there are being so heavy-handed and not answering queries, while claiming that a fairly slow board is giving them too much to keep up with (oh, my) ... those were not problems that you were part of. So, lets' move on, thanks for taking the time to sort this. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Paid editing

Regarding Cla's offer to take up editing on behalf of people who will pay him, I'm pretty sure it's a stunt - a breaching experiment designed to make a mockery of the COI policy. I don't expect he'll get any serious offers. But I'm not sure what to do the next time he nominates an article at FAC, because everything he does there from now on is automatically suspect. This is particularly so if the article happens to fall outside his normal sphere of editing. I'd be interested in hearing your opinion on this, either on-wiki or off-, whichever you prefer. Raul654 (talk) 17:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

It's possible you're right, but FAC can handle paid editing. I suspected an editor was being paid to promote, oh sometime last year or before, and I dug in and opposed, the articles got fixed, no worse for the wear. I'd go so far as to say that FAC reviewers should always consider it might be a factor, I certainly prefer knowing about it (which is why I'm not opposed to what Cla has done), but more strenuous checks for POV should be done. In the suite of articles that caught my eye, it happened to be an area I'm familiar with, so the POV and puffery jumped right out at me in the lead, so I dug in for a full review, and when I looked closer, I found a suite that appeared to be promotional, as in, that editor was being paid to create articles in a niche. I flagged the POV and other issues. That editor stopped. I think FAC can handle paid editing issues, as long as reviewers keep it in mind-- which they should be anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, then let me ask you a slightly different question - what if I were take money in exchange for putting certain featured articles on the main page? (Not that I would consider it. In the past, I've joked about it, but in reality I find the idea rather abhorrent -- a serious breach of the trust I've been given by the community) How, if at all, would that be different from what Cla is doing? Raul654 (talk) 18:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

(after ec) I think the reason that isn't a good analogy is that FACs are promoted based on consensus-- that is, it's the job of multiple reviewers to check the article. You work alone, because the community trusts you in that capacity, so if you were paid that could impact the trust you enjoy from the community.

But this does raise the whole sphere of what is making my editing miserable lately, which is how paid WMF staff processes are leading to bad content creation, sapping my (free, volunteer) time. I just don't see FAC as comparable to either of these scenarios, because of the way FAC works. Reviewers should always be checking for puffery, promotional articles, and POV. WMF is paying people all over the place, and those people are affecting article quality and editor retention; since WMF is heading that way, goose-gander applies. They created this dilemma, and it's not fair for the unpaid volunteers to pay the price and get nothing in return. And they are affecting consensus, but that can't happen at FAC, since delegates have discretion and don't have to promote even if proponents of paid editing take over and declare Support on unworthy articles-- that's why I say FAC can handle it. But WMF and a recent arb case are responsible for the decline in protest to COI and paid editing, and we can only hope now that FAC won't go that direction.

I emailed you the sample article I suspected long ago-- no need to make a public issue of it, since the article was well reviewed and puffery fixed, sources carefully checked, and I could be wrong about the possibility of paid editing being a factor there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I have to run to the library but I'll pop in with some thoughts I have on the subject (which may surprise some folks...) when I get back. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, back. I've never understood what the buggabo is about getting paid for editing. We have plenty of editors here that push agendas relentlessly but it seems that actually getting paid for something is verboten. I've been approached several times about possibly writing articles for pay - generally the subjects aren't notable and I've turned them down. I have yet to accept a paid editing job, but I'm not going to rule it out - if the right circumstances were there why shouldn't I get paid. I would insist on sticking to the wikipedia policies - no puff pieces or anything. For that matter, Broad Ripple Park Carousel is sorta paid editing - I did not get paid for writing it up, but I did get contacted and worked closely with the museum to write it. I was clear with the museum folks that I would not excise any negative information I found (not that I found any!) and that I would adhere to wikipedia policies. I guess I did get "paid" - they bought me and my SO lunch when I went over to visit the carousel. I guess I'm very much in the camp of "judge the edits" not what led to the editing - if the edits are neutral and add information of use to the encyclopedia - what do I care if someone got paid for it? (Well - okay, maybe I care in that why can't *I* get paid too???). Ealdgyth - Talk 20:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

You jogged my memory-- I was asked to edit for pay once, too. It was long ago, I refused, but it was on a suite of articles where I most certainly was up against paid COI editors pushing a POV. If asked again, I'd still turn them down, but for reasons unrelated to the arguments for or against paid editing, having more to do with the content area. Misplaced Pages is no longer the place where we did what we did as selfless volunteers because we believed in free information and quality articles. It's a whole new world in here, with an increased profile leading more and more non-notables to put up articles, less editors to monitor, students editing for grades, WMF advocating for recruits, COI and POV pushers not shut down by the arbs-- all of which makes the years of doing what we did at FAC in the name of quality and with no self-interest look like naivete. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I still enjoy adding to the sum of human knowledge/making it more accessible - but if I'm approached in the right situation I wouldn't turn down money either. Some of the work I've done has been to somewhat "push" an agenda - making not-well known episodes of history better known/better covered. Fairfax Harrison and Jersey Act are both examples of articles where I'm definitely "pushing" an agenda of getting information about a subject into one spot. I consider both of those "neutral" and well sourced so I don't think it's "bad pushing" but they were both written with an agenda in mind. So much the better if someone will help me pay for the many many hours/dollars I've got invested in books/articles/research... there is no way I could begin to recoup the amounts I've spent. Even on the carousel - the lunch did not begin to reimpurse me for my time, much less the research/etc I did for the article. If Cla can get something back for all the "free" editing he's done, so much the better for him. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Considering there are websites where one can hire a Misplaced Pages editor, I'd sure rather have someone who knows and is likely to follow Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines get paid than some of what I've seen coming through New Page Patrol which is surely paid editing. The market is established, the arbs and WMF have furthered the trend: at least make it one where the better editors are the ones doing it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I've already been accused of being paid to write a featured article. Might as well actually be paid. But, I strongly believe that the WMF should head this off by paying productive editors directly, and thus removing the temptation toward bias, however subconscious. --Laser brain (talk) 20:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

ACK!! I don't trust the WMF to have the vaguest clue about what a "productive editor" is !!!! We at FAC know that info ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Taking the whole thing at face value (and as Raul says, one really shouldn't) if someone has a problem with the proposal it's essentially because they don't trust the FAC process. If the FAC process works well (which, IMNSHO, it does, more or less) then who cares WHY someone wrote the article. It's only if it works badly - is subject to manipulation and corruption - that these kinds of concerns come into play. So, indirectly, by being nauseated by Cla68's proposal, OrangeMike is really saying the FAC process is crap.

More generally, I do think that a lot of the objections to paid editing come down to a subconscious, unarticulated and probably mostly correct belief/insecurity that most Misplaced Pages editorial process are shit and can be easily manipulated. I don't think this applies to FAs but it most certainly does apply to the other 90% of Misplaced Pages. Seriously, if someone is paid to write an article, how could you tell? By the quality of the work? If anything, only if it's too well written and too well sourced.VolunteerMarek 21:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Let me lay out the problem with paid editing as I see it:

It's crazy to assume that in general people can edit neutrally while taking money from the subject they are writing about. It might be true about specific people writing on select topics, but the general case absolutely not true.
Paid editors have far more incentive to push their particular bias into articles than do non-paid editors to counter it.
In general, in order to correct bias in an article, you have to actually know something about the topic. If the subject is obscure (like some random company), unpaid editors have very little incentive to go out and learn something about it. Or to even edit on that topic. So non-neutral to that article would tend to go unnoticed.
Paid editing is highly corrosive to a collegial editing environment. It creates the distinct possibility that that editor with whom you are disagreeing is not, in fact, a neutral editor but a paid shill.

Let me point out one specific example of paid editing in action. About two or three years back, it was revealed that Microsoft was paying people to edit the Office Open XML article. These paid editors edit warred to remove information critical of microsoft and OOXML. Looking at the article today it is apparent to me that even three years later the article has not been restored to neutrality. (There's very little mention of how microsoft gamed the standardization process, or how technically deficient the standard was prior to the ISO standarization process and that it remains as such today.) This article could be a case study in why paid editing is a disaster.

On a related note, during the FAC reform discussion (the discussion on the talk page before it got hijacked by Wehwalt and his band of merry sockpupet supporters) a number of people complained about a lack of substantive (that is to say, content-related) FAC reviews. This is something that I took seriously, and that I've been meaning to address. I think problem #3 above makes it all the more important that we address this soon and effectively. Raul654 (talk) 00:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

While I acknowledge the issues you describe, I fail to see how a paid editor would be more dangerous than one motivated by ideology (say, religion of nationalism). Therefore I don't see why money should be discriminated against, compared to other motivations. As VM said, we have checks and balances to ensure quality, and either they work for all articles, whatever the motivation of their creator, or they don't. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 00:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't make much sense to me to say we should tolerate one group of problematic editors because of the existence of another group of problematic editors. We can't prohibit people from imbibing ideology and then editing; we can prohibit them from taking money and then editing. (And sanction them when we catch them).

As VM said, we have checks and balances to ensure quality, and either they work for all articles, whatever the motivation of their creator, or they don't. - it's not an either-or proposition. Sometimes they work, and sometimes they don't. Air bags save lives; that doesn't mean you should cut the brake lines on your car. Raul654 (talk) 01:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Since we accept that our editors will be compromised by ideology, I don't see why we should have problem with money. I see no proof (or even logic) that majority of paid editors would act against the project, compared to other group of editors. I propose a hypothesis that paid editors would be no different from regular ones with regards to neutrality and other issues; prove me wrong with real data (not anecdotal evidence) - or remove the "anyone can edit" from Misplaced Pages motto. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 15:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I accept all the problems raised, but personally I would love it if someone were to pay reasonably expert people to improve some of the very poor big-topic articles on the humanities that nobody can face really putting into shape, and I sometimes think that these will never get much better unless people are paid. All the much-debated objections that academics have to contributing to WP would I suspect melt away if there were some money in it. Not all paid editing need involve a partisan view. I doubt that many of the people ready to pay for articles are prepared to fund the vast amount of extra work needed to get an FA, though I might be wrong. Johnbod (talk) 01:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

personally I would love it if someone were to pay reasonably expert people to improve some of the very poor big-topic articles on the humanities that nobody can face really putting into shape - that sounds like something the NEA or a charitable non-profit might fund. And to be honest, I don't really see anything objectionable in that. (None of my above problems would seem to apply) But frankly, the vast, vast majority of paid editing is going to involve topics related to business interests who have financial interests that conflict with our goals of objectivity and neutrality. Raul654 (talk) 01:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I think VM hits the nail on the head, videlicet, that the objection to paid editing indicates an unacknowledged distrust by those who object in the reliability and validity of Misplaced Pages's administration to enforce Misplaced Pages's policies, especially NPOV. If volunteers had confidence in Misplaced Pages's processes, then why would you have any fear of having paid editors? Raul, you have been involved with this project a long time. Don't you find it disheartening after all this time to find that you can't say with confidence that Misplaced Pages's processes can effectively deal with POV editing, no matter what the source? Cla68 (talk) 01:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't you find it disheartening after all this time to find that you can't say with confidence that Misplaced Pages's processes can effectively deal with POV editing, no matter what the source? - How can you ask me that question after I just pointed to a paid editing case where Misplaced Pages's processes failed spectacularly? Raul654 (talk) 01:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

So, fix Misplaced Pages's administration, then you don't have to worry about what is motivating editors to edit. Cla68 (talk) 01:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

So you admit that the only way paid editing can work is to substantially change how Misplaced Pages operates? Raul654 (talk) 01:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

This article could be a case study in why paid editing is a disaster. - not really. It's a case study in why Misplaced Pages editorial policies are a disaster. The paid editing aspect of it appears to be incidental to the disaster in this instance. I could point you to a couple dozen articles that were more or less "razed to the ground" for reasons other than paid editing. Paid editing is just easy to pick on because by definition the person is not being - and more importantly, not PRETENDING - to act altruistically so they make for easy targets. But all in all it's small potatoes as far as problems go. And if it could be harnessed towards positive ends it wouldn't even be a problem to begin with.VolunteerMarek 01:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I am in the process of putting together a Wiki page about my boss. I'm not being paid to do this, exactly. I mean, I'm on salary, but this has absolutely ZERO to do with my job duties. I just thought she should have her own page (and that she meets Wiki notability requirements), so I brought my idea up the corporate ladder and was given permission to do so. I told them it would be written objectively and properly cited. I will also clearly disclose my COI on the page so that other editors vet the information. Beyond that, I told them I would keep an eye on the page to ensure it's not vandalized.

If I had been commissioned to do the page, I don't think it would change the final outcome. I would still strive to make it as objective as possible. I do find the idea of being paid to write articles distasteful and likely to lead to problems down the road, but I believe the only way to mitigate the damage is to require disclosure. Granted, some people will fail to disclose, create sockpuppets to verify articles, etc, etc. But, that's always been the case, now it's just being discussed more out in the open.JoelWhy (talk) 16:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. It's a bit like drug war problem, or prohibition. You can make something illegal, force people to hide what they do, waste resources on catching them, and never eliminate the problem, or you can welcome their creations and at the same time encourage them to be open (disclose COI), educate/mentor them, at a much cheaper cost to the community, and likely with improved quality of resulting articles. I know which scenario I prefer. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

JoelWhy, as a fellow editor who has struggled in vain to neutralize Hugo Chavez, I'm sure you're aware that paid editing is already a force on Misplaced Pages. Years ago, the "other side" approached me and asked me to edit for them, and my reply was, "why should I"? I offered to help educate them in how to edit Misplaced Pages, and pointed them to WikiProject Venezuela as a place to coordinate that effort, publicly, nothing behind closed doors. They didn't take me up on the offer. Lazy,complacent Venezuelans won't get involved and do the work themselves, and those that do are usually as tendentious and disruptive as the article owners. Venezuelans arrogantly think they can solve the problem by paying someone. Try the next sucker. Anyway, paid editing is already here, and difficult to combat. I'd rather see disclosed paid editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm rather in the camp of "I can't possibly know what your motivation was in writing this, and I'm only interested in the quality of what you've produced anyway", perhaps at least partly as a result of my Skinnerian background. I'm really struggling to see the logic in the position that money is a greater motivator than zealotry, for instance, and if push came to shove I'd far rather have more paid editors that nationalist/Irish republican/abortion/climate change/cold fusion ... zealots.

Oh, and while we're on the subject, I'll offer to undercut Cla68 and produce an FA for $750, payable in advance. Malleus Fatuorum 20:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Good point, Malleus. Money may create bias on the part of the author, but certainly no more than the bias created by ideology.JoelWhy (talk) 12:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Take Justin Bieber on Twitter to FA and we have a deal!! LOL. Well I've long though the foundation should raise funds to highlight some of the poorest articles of high importance and pay people to write them. Also having things up front is less likely for people to do anything sneaky. The core contest is being revived I think which is supposed have a prize..♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

You've missed the revived WP:Core contest but despite very limited publicity I think the results have been impressive. Cunning Casliber has not said in advance what the prize(s) will be! Probably correctly, the WMF's legal advice is that paying for editing at all would expose them to a far greater degree of liability for errors anywhere in the content, & they won't go there. But that shouldn't stop them from funding research to highlight the weakest subject areas & popular important articles. If I knew any software billionaires (which I don't) I would encourage them, rather than donating to WMF, to set up a pocket foundation to pay academics to improve such articles. Johnbod (talk) 21:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm really struggling to see the logic in the position that money is a greater motivator than zealotry, for instance - nobody is saying one is a greater or worse problem than the other. The point is that both are bad, but there's a lot more we can do about the former than the latter. Raul654 (talk) 20:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

There's absolutely nothing you can do about the former if you're dealing with a decent writer, and very little you can do about the latter in the face of overwhelming odds. But you raised a question above that I'd like to address. I would indeed be deeply shocked if any FAC director accepted money to put an article on the main page, or any FAC delegate accepted money to promote an article, or if any editor was paid to vote in a particular way in an AfD. That would simply be corrupt, which accepting payment for the effort of writing an article is not. Malleus Fatuorum 20:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and if it's true that "nobody is saying one is a greater or worse problem than the other" then let me be the first to say that zealotry is a far, far worse problem than paid editing. Malleus Fatuorum 20:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

'That would simply be corrupt, which accepting payment for the effort of writing an article is not. OK, but why are they different? That's what I was trying to get at with my above question. Why do you say that writing for pay not corrupt, but voting or choose main page articles for pay is correct? Raul654 (talk) 14:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Because millions of people are paid for writing stuff every day, it's a normal daily occupation, whereas accepting bribes is not. Corrupt: lacking in integrity, open to or involving bribery or other dishonest practices. Malleus Fatuorum 15:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you, but I'd add this: when publishing any serious scholarly work, it's generally considered unethical, if not corrupt, to fail to disclose payments which might represent a conflict of interest. One could argue (correctly) that Misplaced Pages often has little resemblance to a serious scholarly work, but that's not an argument against setting higher standards than we currently do. Of course, none of that would apply to disclosed conflicts of interest. MastCell 20:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

... which is at the heart of the issue here. We all know that paid editing happens, and that nothing anyone can possibly do will eliminate it, if indeed it even makes sense to want to eliminate it. So, as you say, the only real issue is one of disclosure. Malleus Fatuorum 21:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes. This comment also says it well. Kablammo (talk) 21:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

OK AfD Question for you

Clearly fails WP:BAND, and WP:GNG to me. It has no sourcing, and contains original research. is AfD appropriate, or is BLP Prod appropriate? Do BLP rules apply to Bands/Rappers?Newmanoconnor (talk) 20:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

That's an article about a person, not a band, and it's unreferenced, ~~therefore you should BLP softprod it.~~ Malleus Fatuorum 20:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, it was created before 18 March, so you can't. You could try AfD, but I doubt you'd get anywhere with that. Just have to put up with it I guess or fix what you can. Malleus Fatuorum 20:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Malleus! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, thats helpful analysis.Newmanoconnor (talk) 00:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Another question

You have stated to me that AfD's are for Notability,as if this is the only criteria to nominate something. WP:AFD states differently. Why?Newmanoconnor (talk) 00:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Where does it state differently? Pretty much the only reason something should ever end up on AfD is if it's not notable. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Not so. There have been several cases recently of BLPs being proposed for deletion for reasons other than notability, and one in particular because the subject of the article claimed that it was causing him stress. Malleus Fatuorum 00:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Under Nominating Articles for Deletion. section A, #2:

"The main four guidelines and policies that inform deletion discussions: notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V), reliable sources (WP:RS), and what Misplaced Pages is not (WP:NOT)"Newmanoconnor (talk) 00:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Newman: I'm glad you've popped in here for additional feedback, and encouraged to see you studying the relevant pages.

First, you may have misunderstood what I said (or I didn't state it clearly enough): after you made a post that suggested that you may have nominated an article at AFD to bring editor attention to result in improvement to a very poor first draft of an article, I mentioned to you that AFD is for determining notability rather than getting attention to article improvement. I didn't intend to exclude other possibilities.

Second, WP:RS and WP:V work together to inform WP:N (that is, an article has to meet notability based on reliable sources that make it verifiable), so those three accord with what I told you. With respect to WP:NOT, yes an article can be verifiable according to reliable sources, but still in breach WP:NOT and end up deleted or merged. At any rate, the nomination we were discussing did use reliable sources and was not in breach of WP:NOT.

Third, the issue arose because you nominated an article at AFD based on your statement that it used POV sources (by the way, whenever you tag an article POV, you should justify that on talk). Depending on who you ask <smile>, all sources are POV. I've seen folks claim (with a "straight face") that the New York Times is POV. Misplaced Pages asks that sources meet our reliability standards and are used appropriately (in the article you nominated, correct attribution of opinions was something that needed to be looked in to). In this case, the article used numerous reliable sources, along with some opinion pieces in its first version (and curiously, used sources from "both sides of the aisle", although I can't determine if there is cherry picking since I don't have access to most of those sources). I decided to sort out what was going on in there so I could determine if the opinion pieces were being used correctly, and see what was left in terms of sourcing if I removed or attributed the opinions. The question to evaluate at AFD is not whether the article is POV, but whether there are reliable sources that indicate notability can be met. The issue on that article was made more difficult by the need to use search terms other than the article title.

Anyway, the take home message is that an article can meet notability even if the earlier versions are POV (I can't fix the POV in that article without access to more sources-- I chunked in enough reliable sources for notability only). One thing you might do in cases where you're unsure if notability can be met is to tag the article with {{notability}}, keep it watchlisted, see if someone adds reliable sources or responds, and consider a merge proposal or a {{prod}} before heading to AFD. In this case, I was already on it, and could have saved you the trip to AFD. I hope this helps, regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Sandy, that is immensely helpful. I'm beginning to get a better view of what you've been trying to say. Thanks for taking the time to educate and not just admonish. I obviously need to reflect on how those three work together and pay attention to how a braoder base of editors nom for AfD, etc. I think you've done an amazing thing with that article and while it is still fairly POV, it certainly doesn't resemble what it was, I have asked to withdraw the nom on the AfD page. If you would be so kind as to do a non admin close, I would appreciate it.Newmanoconnor (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

You're most welcome, and I'm glad it was helpful (it's kinda embarrassing to end up waaaaaay the lead editor on a massively POV article, but that's the norm on Venezuela articles). I've never closed an AFD, have no clue what's involved, and have no interest in learning about adminly things ... perhaps one of my TPS will do the honors. (Also, it would be inappropriate for me to close an AFD where I have entered a declaration.) Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I think your input might be invaluable ...

... over here. You've done such a lot of stuff with Featured Articles, etc., and I'm sure you can put some importnat points into this discussion. Other FA specialists' input would also be invaluable. I think those who have extensive experience at the FA level would be able to give the discussion the best input, being (effectively) WikiExperts in what should and should not be included in articles. Pesky (talk) 00:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Is that the old "Verifiability vs Truth" issue, and dealing with 9/11. Ugh ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

It's kinda related to VnT, but it's more about removing apparently-reliably-sourced stuff which is quite clearly factually wrong (not "philosophically untrue", just plain wrong-in-reality!) Like not saying in the Dewey or Truman (or campaign) articles that this actually happened, just because some normally-reliable source made a mistake. (After all, no source is ever going to be completely infallible on everything ...). I didn't know anything about 9/11 having a link to this. I avpoid subjects like 9/11, like the plague! I quite understand if you feel there's nothing much you can say there, though. Pesky (talk) 09:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Query for TPS

Misplaced Pages:Database reports/Most-watched pages by namespace.

Little Barrier Island? What am I missing? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

A glitch? It seems implausible that an article with 91 edits and less than 1,000 visitors per month has nearly 4,000 watchers. The article's been second since the list was created in April 2010 (assuming there isn't an earlier version somewhere else), so someone hasn't recently decided to spam the page with watchers to get it higher up the table (although I can't see that being a particularly rewarding thing to do in any case). It doesn't fit with the trend of high-traffic pages. Richard_Evans_(British_author) is also a peculiarity. Nev1 (talk) 17:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Richard Evans (British author) apparently inherited Misplaced Pages:Introduction's watchers in August 2007. I suppose I should document these anomalies on the report's talk page.... --MZMcBride (talk) 17:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) When a page is moved, its watchers will have both the new title and the old title on their watchlist. This is particularly problematic with certain kinds of vandalism ("Legitimate page title" moved to "John Doe lives at 123 Salsbury Street", &c.).

In this case, Little Barrier Island's page move log gives a clue. You can see that the page used to live at Hauturu/Little Barrier Island. When you look at Hauturu/Little Barrier Island's log, you can see that this relatively obscure article inherited all of the Main Page's watchers in 2005. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 17:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Three posts in a row... in some cultures, we'd now be married. I forgot to mention that I did a visualization of the most-watched articles here. (I did a bit of minor editing of the list.) --MZMcBride (talk) 17:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The things one can learn from TPS! Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

if you ever somehow have a lot of extra time

... Wanna work on medicinal mushrooms with me? It has some, uh, "pretty big" medical sourcing problems. It's been on my to-do list for a very long time, I just don't even know where to start with it. If you ever feel like taking on such a project collaboratively, drop me a note. I know it's a bit funny to ask you if you want to work on an article with me given the recent edu program stuff, but, well, just look at it :p, it's frightening... Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Kevin, have you encountered Casliber (talk · contribs) on mushrooms? He is Mr Mushroom on Misplaced Pages, and he's also a physician, so if you can get him (the expert) on board for content issues, I'll help with the rest. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

(TPS comment) User:Sasata is also big into mushrooms - and he recently took Psilocybin to FA. He's a biochemist/microbiologist with access to a lot of sources, so could quite possibly be of some help on the medicinal mushroom article. Dana boomer (talk) 16:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, my ... how on earth did I forget Sasata ... sigh ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

re: Sebastián Barclay

Hello. I wanted to let you know I contested the PROD on this article. This person is a professional footballer with several years of experience in the Americas. He is not a super-star, and really never lived up to his early promise, but I've fleshed out his career a little bit and added some references (they're not the best quality as my Spanish comprehension is not very good). If you still think the article is non-notable, please feel free to send it to AfD. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 02:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I removed one blog source, and another personal website that was posting someone else's press releases (not third-party, possible copyvio, not a reliable source). The first source merely mentions his name. Doesn't look notable to me, but I've accepted the fact that on Misplaced Pages playing in one match makes athletes more notable than doctors, military or lawyers that have a lifetime of significant achievements. If he has "several years of experience in the Americas", there must be reliably sourced mentions of him, but we can't use blogs and personal websites to source WP:BLPs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with your removal of that content, and I'll try to find better sourcing for that material. Jogurney (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

CBT

Per your suggestion, I took a crack at Cognitive behavioral therapy. Might want to take a look and make sure I didn't butcher it too badly - I know next to nil about the subject. You may feel free to leave another suggestion for me (or smack me in the face) at your earliest opportunity :-)

Best regards: Cliff (a/k/a "Uploadvirus") (talk) 19:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Douglas Lynch?

Why did you change both of the "Doug Lynch" articles to "Douglas Lynch"? Although that maybe the people's full birth names, but that is certainly not how the hockey player is known, and his hockey records and other references all call him "Doug Lynch". I can't speak for sure about the academic guy, but again just checking the links on his page showed that he is also known as "Doug", not "Douglas". While the first sentence of most biography pages list their full birth names, the articles themselves should be named for the common name of the person (ie. Bill Gates' article is not called "William Henry Gates III"). Please revert those changes. Greg Salter (talk) 16:37, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I lost a long response when my battery died, back later tonight to retype. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

What Greg Salter said. —KRM 22:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the delay; was out all afternoon, and found another mess when I returned to editing. Sooo ... there's quite a mess in there. We had three Douglas Lynch's, no dab page, not a single one of them correctly cited, and in no case do we have a comparison to the Bill/William Gates scenario, since his named is based on sources. The hockey player had *one* source cited, that mentioned his name in passing (I've noticed there is a shocking laxness about citing and establishing notability on athlete articles). The Barbados fellow had paragraph after parapraph of uncited, unencyclopedic text on a BLP. And the academic was created under a COI scenario, and almost wholly cited to self (again, laxness in citation and establishing notability frequently noted on athletes and academics), with one source saying Doug, second saying Douglas, third saying Douglas E (so I opted for the more complete, since there was no agreement). So, on this problem (the hockey player), since there is only one source cited in the entire article, on what do you all base the notion that Doug is the more common, used name? One source does not equate to a Bill Clinton, Bill Gates scenario. Correctly citing articles and setting up the dab pages etc. will help avoid these problems. There's quite a bit to be sorted now (where should the main Doug Lynch redirect, for example), and whether this fellow is Doug or Douglas isn't one of the bigger problems for now. I'd be glad to help sort it all if someone can add sources so we can get it right this time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow, that's one of the most uppity responses I've seen in a while. So let me get this straight... a few articles had no real reason to rename them, but you went ahead with that major step and it did anyway, since you said there was almost no references showing their names WEREN'T Douglas. You took a MAJOR step in renaming articles written and updated by others, then bitched about it ("shocking laxness"), but you couldn't do a 5 second Google search on your own before you took that step? Well here you go, references that Google showed up on the first page of results from some little known sources like the CBC (http://www.cbc.ca/sports/story/2001/05/27/memorialcup010527.html), the NHL (http://www.nhl.com/ice/player.htm?id=8469495), the Edmonton Oilers (http://oilers.nhl.com/club/player.htm?id=8469495), the Western Hockey League (http://www.whl.ca/roster/list/team/30/season/214), and the Red Deer Rebels (http://www.reddeerrebels.com/roster/show/id/4051). I Googled the academic guy and guess what? Lots of articles referring to him as Doug, including his own employer (University of Pennsylvania) and ABC News. So, how about your revert your changes, and next time think before you rename. In fact, I'm almost certain Misplaced Pages guidelines expressly state that you must talk about this on the Talk page before you go and rename existing articles. Greg Salter (talk) 06:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Progress ... five sources that no one could be bothered to add to the article when creating or updating it (it's everywhere, unsourced BLPs, dubious notability, lax sourcing standards-- nothing particular to these fellows, so please don't take it personally). I might not know my proper place on Misplaced Pages ... perhaps it's to follow folks around sourcing articles when no one else could be bothered? OK, so if you'd like to focus on solving the problem instead of personalizing issues, we still have it. On the other Douglas Lynch, his "own employer" didn't even know if he had a PhD or not when they hired him, and his article was created with dubious notability (although he's notable now!) based on self, his bio from his employer is now gone, and his notability was pretty much established after that (missing) bio was deleted as inaccurate. We still have three Douglas Lynch's which started out with marginal sourcing, and the way we sort such messes is by focusing on sources (the way we avoid them to begin with is by sourcing articles correctly). So, are you here just to complain, or do you have something to say about how the trio should be sorted with correct dab pages, redirects, etc ? If you are only concerned about one hockey player-- rather than sorting the whole mess-- well, that might be called uppity, no? Big picture: we have three Douglas Lynch and two or three Doug Lynch (sources offline on Barbados fellow). We had no dab pages, we had dubious sourcing, we have to define redirects. How would like to resolve all three, including redirects, dabs, etc? Right now Doug Lynch points to the Douglas Lynch dab page, which makes sense to me, since we have two notable Doug and Douglas Lynchs. The original Douglas Lynch article is pointing at the Barbados fellow, who seems to be the least known of the three ... and the academic fellow got, and is going to get, more mention in reliable sources now than he ever got before his dubious article was created. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Guianan savanna

Hello,

I think that La Gran Sabana and Guyanan savanna are not the same thing. Second , "the savanna - they should say Guianan savanna, I think - encompasses the treeless and tree patch mosaic of the Gran Sabana". And, although the term Guianan savanna is never mentioned on that page, if you go to the page of WildWorld, and search for NT0707 (the code of "South America: Northern Brazil, Guyana, and Venezuela - Neotropic"), it will be indicated Guianan savanna. Clicking it, it will appear a box. Click in Story & Photos, and More Details, and it again refers to Guianan savanna.

Sorry for my bad English.

Thanks, Tiberti (talk) 01:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)Tiberti

This was quite a mess-- it was originally at Guyanan savanna, and there was no such thing as Guyanan savanna in the cited source. In fact, they don't name it at all. I did find Guianan savanna by searching their website (globally), but nowhere do we find a Guyanan savanna as far as I can tell. The site is so poorly organized that I can't decipher what they're up to ... do you have any other source that uses this terminology so we can compare, or is something they invented? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

This is really a mess. Well, I find:

Savanas da Guiana, or Savannas of Guyana, with 43,358 square km ;
Savana da Guiana ;
South America: Northern Brazil, Guyana, and Venezuela - Neotropic (NT0707) and Guaianan savanna (on the maps), both with 40,300 square miles (=100,000 square km);
Guianan Freshwater, with 510,000 sq. km and and .

Now, I'm very confused... Tiberti (talk) 19:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Tiberti, I'm pretty busy today, can't get to it yet, but we'll get these sorted. Do you speak Spanish? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm Brazilian, I can understand a bit : ) Tiberti (talk) 15:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Moving the discussion

Look, SG, I'm not a big time contributor around here, but I've been around enough that I know you're an important editor who knew more about Misplaced Pages back when I joined than I will ever know. So it's with some trepidation that I post this, but I just have to say that I really resent your tone in your post. Now, in the big scheme of things, my hurt feelings are chickenfeed compared to the apparent mess that you're looking at, so perhaps I shouldn't bother. But you should recognize that I was writing not only in good faith, but was not guilty of (most) of what you were accusing me of. Yes, I used vulgarity in an edit summary; I was reacting to what I thought was another case of wikilawyering, where something good was being shot down because someone just thought they could--and that does happen. But I immediately recognized that perhaps I had overreacted, and, moments later, I approached the editor in question with complete civility. And in point of fact, he acknowledged that he did act precipitously, without really having a good understanding of the issue (which is what we apparently shared in common).

Now as to your comment that these do not constitute an aesthetic improvement, clearly, by definition, this is a matter of opinion. Mine was based upon just one article, Illinois, where it simply replaced an already extant table. But I will say, not knowing the first thing about FAs, that I am pleased to learn that the Supreme Authority on FAs (I swear that is not meant sarcastically) is pro-prose. I have a pet peeve about the use of bulleted lists in articles (my current target is Quad Cities) and other such stuff; if it can be written out as text, I tend to think it's more encyclopedic. But this rule cannot be absolute, and I would be hard pressed to believe even you would not agree; what encyclopedia lacks tables? And I just thought this one was better than what had been there.

Finally, and most reluctantly, I want to address the condescending manner which you took with me regarding policy. There was, in my opinion, absolutely no justification for you to quote WP:V, WP:RS, WP:3RR, or WP:OWN. I know 'em all, and I certainly did not violate any of them, neither in my actions nor even the spirit thereof. I edited Illinois exactly once, and my comments right before your post criticizing me made clear (albeit without citing policies) that I understand the need to have accurate information. But even without the post, nothing I said would indicate that I felt otherwise.

Frankly, I am terrified that posting this will get me placed on some blacklist. But I really felt that you were out of line. I understand that you have huge responsibilities, and don't have time for this, but I've never before been so insulted by anyone with a username, and I just couldn't hold these thoughts in. HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you think posting "bullshit" to another good faith editor (who was correct, by the way) was the right way to approach this? You may find that a bit of humility will hold you in good stead on a website where everyone can see everything you've written. Whatever you're reacting to, even if you think it's "wikilawyering" try to take a higher road. The previous editor indicated it wasn't a reliable source, and it clearly isn't. If you take the time to read and contemplate, you might learn something, and editing will be more fun. Now, if you'll pardon me, there's a massive cleanup that needs attending to; this isn't really the place to discuss those templates-- that place is ANI or TFD. I don't keep blacklists, by the way. It takes a sustained amount of Really Negative Stuff to earn a spot in my long-term memory. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't come here to discuss the templates; I thought that since my beef was with your interaction with me, that this was a more appropriate venue (if I was wrong, I gladly yield to your view). And as I indicated, I recognized my error in my edit summary, and acted upon that recognition, well before you took me to task. And while you were right to still point out that error; I was questioning why you were accusing me of edit warring and owning an article. No, you didn't use profanity, but there are lots of people more insulted by the bad faith of false accusations than by the exclamation of a schoolyard profanity.

And, incidentally, the reason I questioned the sourcing concern was because the information inserted by the table was the same as the information that had existed before the template was added. Did I jump to conclusions? Sure, we all do on occasion. But I owned up to it moments later, which is (in my book) still more civil than falsely accusing someone of edit warring and other such. HuskyHuskie (talk) 05:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like you learned from this that you can avoid future problems by studying the situation before calling "bullshit" on another editor (particularly in an edit summary, where the comment will endure and can't be struck). The editor removed a non-reliable source. You reverted (to re-add a non-reliable source) without first discussing on article or user talk. It's encouraging that you later (quickly?) recognized the error, all good faith editors make mistakes, and acknowledged that your reaction was because you thought you had encountered a wikilawyer, but the reason I pointed you to 3RR is that 3RR is not a license to revert, even if he had been a "wikilawyer" you still gotta AGF and respond collegially, and I reminded you to take care in edit summary accusations. If someone says a source is not reliable, a reasonable thing to do is ask before reinstating the text. It's coincidental in this case that you say the data matched (it doesn't in most cases I've checked). Perhaps you could go help remove some of those templates? I've been working on them all night, and there are still about a hundred to go. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The situations regarding Andorra and Afghanistan are not probably complicated, but I am falling asleep at the keyboard and cannot hope to figure out the proper way to deal with them, since those templates were inserted some time ago. I leave those to you. HuskyHuskie (talk) 06:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Husky ... I see no direction forward has yet gained consensus at ANI ... perhaps since it was a good faith messup, folks are just hoping that Max will db-author delete them all so that a huge TFD discussion doesn't have to happen. If we don't hear something soon from Max, I guess an AFD may have to go forward. (I just noticed you helped out in the effort to remove them from articles-- thank you!!!) I think that's all we can do for now, Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

FAC foreign language source checks

Hi Sandy, I've taken the liberty of adding your name to User:Simon Burchell/FAC foreign language reviewers, a rough-and-ready page I've set up in response to the ongoing discussion at FAC. Feel free to do whatever you want with the page, including moving it to somewhere more appropriate. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 15:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Medical sources handout/paragraph

Sandy, if/when you create the sentences or handout or whatever it's going to be on sourcing, could you ping me? The students on the course I am working with (Misplaced Pages:United States Education Program/Courses/Psychology of Language (Kyle Chambers)) are having some trouble with correctly identifying secondary sources, according to a more experienced editor I'm talking to. I think your notes would be helpful. On the plus side, they seem to have been instructed to post notes to the article talk page offering to fix problems -- I've seen this note on several talk pages, almost identically phrased: "If anyone has any comments on the material that I have added or any more material that they believe should be added please comment on the talk page and I will be more than glad to take into account any comments". Let's hope they are as good as their word. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Statistical Language Acquisition

This puzzles me, rather. Is it a content fork? Is it a something else? Can you help? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Busy day, just home, tired ... Slp1 (talk · contribs) will know what to do on that one ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Doug Lynch

SandyGeorgia,

I deleted Doug Lynch from the heading "Notable Faculty" under entry of the University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of Education because he was a member of the staff, not of the faculty. Everyone else on the list is a member of the faculty, although a few also hold administrative appointments for set terms after which time they will return full-time to their faculty duties. (A clue here: At Penn, if the title of Dean is preceded by "Vice" or by "Assistant", you can be sure they are staff.)

Perhaps I should have kept his name but changed the heading to "Notable Faculty and Staff", which would have subsumed the two classes of employees. Are you OK with this solution? If so, would you be willing to make the change or would you like for me to? Thank you for considering this proposal.

Ephadams (talk) 01:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

It sounds to me like you're looking for an argument to exclude a discredited Douglas E. Lynch from the list of "notables" at the article about the institution that didn't check his credentials to begin with. It doesn't matter to me what you call the folks who work there (staff, faculty, administration, whatever), you don't get to remove someone from the page just because he's embarrassed the institution. That would violate WP:NPOV. By the way, I see a whole lotta supposed notables on that page whose articles are sourced to UPenn itself, which is what got us into this spot to begin with, no? It would be nice if articles were sourced to independent, third-party sources-- they might check credentials. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

Account activation codes have been emailed.
To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
The 1-year, free period begins once you enter the code.
If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Misplaced Pages better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 04:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

After spending a few hours exploring my new HighBeam account for the Misplaced Pages topics I most edits, I found ... NOTHING of use. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Little issue to look at if you have time

If you have time and are willing to get involved with a dispute among the FA/GA people, please look at User_talk:John#Date_formats. Ealdgyth tried to do something, but it didn't help. People might listen to you. I know this is a relatively minor issue, but it should be pretty black-and-white. Also, from my perspective, MF is again scarlet lettering an article. Gimmetoo (talk) 19:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Please drop in at Talk:Sean Combs. And could you please get MF to stop snarking and baiting. I believe this is approaching WP:Harassment. Gimmetoo (talk) 05:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

You may believe whatever you like, doesn't make it true though. Malleus Fatuorum 05:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

And if you believe that SandyG, or anyone else, has some magical power to shut me up then you really need to think again. I listen to reason, and I've heard none of that from you. Malleus Fatuorum 05:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Please do not make this personal, MF. I have endeavored not to engage your snarks. Please, address issues on the policy and guideline level, and please, please, stop trying to provoke me. Gimmetoo (talk) 05:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

You're the one whose obsession with date formatting is making this personal Gimmetoo. I'd strongly advise you to stop right now. Malleus Fatuorum 06:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that unsolicited advice. Now please do not make this personal. Gimmetoo (talk) 06:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Let me tell you what I really think, and bugger the consequences. You have failed to address what you call my "snarks" because you are intellectually incapable of doing so, and thus instead resort to this kind of ad hominem appeal. Malleus Fatuorum 06:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

If addressing all pertinent points is viewed as "intellectual incapable" in your eyes, then so be it. I have, however, endeavored to ignore those comments from you that I view as snarks or insults. If you don't think comments like "drop his stick" are snarky or provocative, then you are welcome to present them another way, and I will endeavor to address them. Gimmetoo (talk) 06:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you've rather ably proved my point. If I don't think that such comments are "snarks or insults", which I've very clearly said that I don't, then why would I take the trouble to reword them for your benefit? Malleus Fatuorum 14:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Goodness, why has the entire Merry Merridew Anti-FAC pro-Sock Supporting Cabal suddenly appeared on the same article and for gosh sakes, Malleus ... is it worth it ????? OK, so they couldn't shut down FAC, so they're gonna shut down GimmeBot, which does the same thing. Oh, such a nice group of editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, gee, lookie there, Gimmetrow (who was plagued by Jack Merridew aka Alarbus aka everybody and the kitchen sink) has been maintaining that article for years, but Wehwalt, Diannaa, RexxS, and Rlevse (who just happened to be on the same wrong side of the FAC issue as Alarbus) just all happen to show up on the same day !! And now who said Rlevse could be trusted to be unblocked again ?? Have you all no shame? Pena ajena. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Reverts to edits on Autism article

Hi SandyGeorgia, I am confused as to why you reverted my edits. PubMed is a scientific journal, which according to Wiki's sourcing policies, is reliable and most of the article uses a scientific journal. CDC is not a scientific journal and I do not understand why the source needs to be used in the article. ATC 21:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Moreover, the sentence that says "The number of people diagnosed with autism has increased dramatically since the 1980s" is inaccurate. All the sources in the article say autism was rare in the 1980s but increased in the late 1990s and early 2000s. ATC 21:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Finally, the sources for the vaccines in the lead should not be tagged after the sentence about prevalence but after where it discusses the vaccines and the PubMed source is no longer linked and is all messy now when you click the citation tag. ATC 21:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Solicited reviews from outside subject matter experts

Can you give this a look and tell me what you think. I think this is something that is seriously handicapping Misplaced Pages in general and FAC in particular.

I know you said you wanted a less active role here, but this is very important to me, and I can think of no one I trust more than you to do the job of coordinating with outside experts. Raul654 (talk) 03:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Oooh, please may I solicit a review outside of your normal areas of expertise? ;P Pesky (talk) 13:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Chavez

I've just posted on the talk page encouraging users there to Be Bold in helping to get the article into shape. I'm ready to really put my foot down and take this to dispute resolution if we can't make progress. The ongoing issues there with blatant removals of well-sourced negative content is just ridiculous. I'm going to be really busy for the next few days, and I know you take an interest in this issue. I hope you can help.

One thing I am concerned about is that the users discussing the problem there now may not be fully experienced and may make NPOV errors in the other direction. I hope we can coach them in proper editing!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, a big problem has been disruptive posts on talk in both directions-- that, even more than the pro-Chavez hagiography and wholesale removal of reliably sourced information, is what made me throw in the towel. Even the folks attempting neutrality ended up shooting themselves in the feet, making work impossible. There was no one to work with, although one editor who gave a solid effort was JoelWhy (talk · contribs), and perhaps Saravask (talk · contribs) (who wrote the now defeatured version) would come back if the talk page became constructive. We need to force folks to keep talk page discussion focused on sources and content, avoiding the outlandish claims ala Chavez is a dictator, etc. Maybe an uninvolved party can remove WP:SOAP and WP:NOTAFORUM posts? I once proposed that we needed to instate a 1RR rule there, but that was shouted down. I also suggested once reverting the article to bare bones, back before Midnightblueowl's edits made the article even more POV and verbose, and starting over, building via consensus. That flopped, too. I am going to be traveling soon, for almost two weeks, to an area where I will have limited access, so while I can weigh in sporadically for now, I won't be full force until June. If we can't make any progress by simply forcing some talk page etiquette, then I suggest we first ask for some sort of admin enforcement at ANI, and if that still fails, then it would be time for the arbs. But a solid attempt is needed: we'll see-- but I'm quite busy until June. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

FAC outside reviews

Hey Sandy,

I had a few thoughts on the Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates#Subject matter experts and reviews discussion that I thought too specific to put over there, for fear of taking things onto tangents.

You mention WP:PSTS, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, etc. with outside experts. Something that I have thought about often is that I think WP's definition of PSTS is not balanced across fields. Under WP definition, a scientific primary source is a research article; this is fundamentally different from a historical primary source (e.g., a letter from 1531). Indeed, it seems like under these criteria, a historian's data are the primary sources and their papers are therefore secondary... so for symmetry, a scientific data set should be primary and a scientific research paper should be secondary (under our definitions). This makes sense to me because the experts should interpret their data. Of course, review articles written by those not directly involved in all of the research that they are summarizing are better for WP, but depending on field, these are written more or less frequently. Basically, I think that the scientific peer-reviewed literature is downgraded compared to the humanistic peer-reviewed literature under our policies, which seems strange to me as a scientist, and I think should at least be discussed before getting outside expert opinions (because I expect others to be as befuddled as I).
Opinions: I don't think that academics in general work to advance positions in arguments for personal reasons, but sometimes they do, and when they do, they often do so loudly and obnoxiously... maybe they were ignored as children or something. (Oops! Was that just some WP:SYNTH?) It seems that WP attracts the end-members: the altruistic who want to help advance human knowledge, and the self-centered who want a megaphone. How will we sort these in the expert reviews? And how will we have an ability to argue against biased "expert" reviews? In this, I agree completely with what you say in your point #3: their review should be weighed exactly as we would weigh any other review.
Implementation: I put some suggestions on the WP page, but if you want to chat / brainstorm here, I'd love to and we'd avoid cluttering that main talk page until we came up with a pretty good idea. As I said over there, I think that if we make the process easy and attractive - including inside editors and perhaps even inspire the outside reviewers to feel good about volunteering their time the fantastic WP cause - we'll have succeeded. But I haven't thought enough about how to deal with non-altruistic outside reviewers. I like to think that people are out to do good things and do less to plan for the alterantive...

Awickert (talk) 20:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Butting in uninvited, I like your analogy of the raw data being the primary source and the published paper the secondary source. Makes sense to me. Malleus Fatuorum 20:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Me, too. Pesky (talk) 20:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Glad that seems sensible to both of you: I've been in very circular debates on this: peer review is the gold standard → but your peer-reviewed articles are primary sources → . In fact, this issue appeared recently: Misplaced Pages talk:No original research#Clarifying definitions. It seems like the solution in this case was common sense, but didn't involve any rewording of the (confusing) policy, and therefore is not a permanent solution.

So I think the way I would see it is (using the two above examples):

Historian: → →
Scientist: → →

And say that the scientist writing the research paper is as susceptible to bias as the historian writing their research paper: I disagree with statements that doing the experiments makes the author personally involved in a way to define the scientific paper as a "primary source" any more than the historian's research would make them personally involved in the topic.

Maybe I should bring this up at Misplaced Pages: No original research... <sigh>, when I have a block of time... Awickert (talk) 00:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I should also note for those unfamiliar: scientific research papers always reference prior work and integrate the new findings into the body of preexisting knowledge, which also argues for their liberation from the "primary source" bucket. Awickert (talk) 00:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Hm

Got slack in my absence have you? Contrary to your edit, "no police report of the incident has been produced" is not backed up by the source you give (). On the contrary, the source says the police report, which has circulated via e-mail in Venezuela... Rd232 21:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Got nicer in your absence have you? You have a most interesting take on that source-- the Baruta Police have produced no report, and declined to comment-- I guess you consider something "circulated via email" to be official. I recommend snopes.com for folks who believe anything that circulates in e-mail. Doesn't it stink to not be able to just copy-paste plagiarize and try to put something in your own words, thereby giving folks reason to shoot blanks! So while you're here picking on my paraphrasing of a source (any reason you can't use article talk ??), on a matter that is appropriate for user talk (since it's an old pattern repeating), PLEASE stop changing citation style, cutting-and-pasting exact text from sources, and switching to British English in articles that use American English and have an established style. We've been round all three of these before, and what is accomplished by this instansigent editing style is that othera have to always cleanup after you, and you should know better, if not because you're an admin but because of the length of time you've been editing. You know how to follow established citation style and we've discussed before paraphrasing ... now, I'm no better than the next guy at paraphrasing, but you don't have any excuse at this late stage for cutting corners, copy-pasting exact text, using your own citation style when there is an already established style in an article, using British English when articles (and Venezuela) are in American English, and generally making for a lot of cleanup. Try to be nice, now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Pine/drafts/ENWP Board of Education

You may want to read and comment on User:Pine/drafts/ENWP Board of Education. It proposes amongst other things creating a body that is parallel but does not compete with ArbCom. --LauraHale (talk) 05:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)