User talk:SandyGeorgia

Reminder to self

Periodic table for EdChem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Expand Front of the Class (film). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No reply

Hi SandyGeorgia,
I received no reply at either Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Education, or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology about merging the ABA and Behavior mod articles.
Also User:Casliber is checking at his office.
One psychologist said he thought ABA was a form of Behavior mod.
He said he wants to ask others in order to get a more a global view on ABA.
In addition, it is quite confusing because Cognitive-Behavior Modification is the old term for, what is now known as, Cognitive behavioral therapy.
Nonetheless, a website said CBT and ABA are two different forms of behavior therapy.
CBT is a form of psychotherapy and ABA is a form of behavior analysis that utilizes the application of operant conditioning to reinforce behavior.
ATC^{. Talk} 05:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just spoke to someone I know who has a Ph.D. in Behavior Analysis and Clinical Psychology. He is also an author and works with autistic children as well as people with sexual disorders and helps people organize themselves in business (See here: Organizational behavior management (OBM), a form of ABA), and has spoken at various press conferences. He said anyone who still uses the term "behavior modification" is using "outdated termonoligy" and that no one has called ABA "behavior modification" in years if they kept up with the literature. In addition, he said Cognitive behavior therapy commonly used ABA in the old days which is why they use to call it "Cognitive-Behavior Modification". He said some forms of CBT still incorporate ABA which is known as Functional analytic psychotherapy and Acceptance and Commitment Therapy. But it is primarily two different forms of Behavior therapy. So what should I do about not receiving a reply? I can't just merge the articles on my own right? So what should I do? ATC^{. Talk} 08:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reference management software

Hi Sandy. SPhilbrick (Talk) asked me to speak with you regarding this question. Do you happen to know of a reference management tool that is currently being used by the community to share secondary references with; some of these tools allow for people to pool and share secondary resources related to certain topics (e.g. think of them being a bookmarklet tool that anyone can see)? Thanks. GT67 (talk) 22:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GT67, I'm not sure what you're asking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DivaKnockouts

I understand your concerns about the copyvio issues in general, but I may believe that the way you approach Diva's work as copyvio is a bit inflated. Some days ago, Blue asked me to verify another DYK article from Diva and it was completely clean from copyvios. This gives me a sign that this is not recurrent. Also, I did review a good article nomination of him some weeks ago, and I was unable to find copyvios either. Anyways, I promised I will check his contribs and I will, but I need time. I am currently very busy with my studies, my job as leading mediator on the Spanish Wikipedia and now that I was accepted as a clerk, I have a lot to read and learn. As I have followed Diva's article development, I would not recommend a CCI to be opened. It would be a waste of time, and I would finally be the one checking his articles there. I would like to take control of this and handle this situation my way. And also, there is no process in DYK restricting users nominating articles if they had issues before. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 01:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK is in a unique position to educate editors on copyvio early on in their Wiki editing career, before multiple articles with copyvio are created. In this instance, DYK failed (again). Multiple problems here:

Diva has indicated several times that the copyvios are all addressed, and they are not, so Diva isn't getting the message. That's what is most important here.
Diva has said you would do the work, but you're not doing it either, so that means we're left with copyvio. There's the additional concern that you approved the hook, which was cut-and-paste plagiarism.
A CCI should be opened, the copyvio was serious and has occurred on multiple articles and the original editor isn't cleaning them up. In ordinary circumstances, a CCI would be opened, but since CCI is backed up and there are few Spanish-speaking editors who can deal with this, MoonRiddenGirl, Calliopejen1 and myself will deal with it via MRG's userspace so we don't have to open a CCI. Leaving it as is, and leaving Diva the impression it has been adquately addressed, is a problem, and we need to have some place where a cleanup list is generated and checked.
Since Crisco got on this issue at DYK, Diva's editing has improved. That's the good news. But we still have to clean up the articles. And we still have to wonder why DYK lets so much copyvio through.

I've been thinking on the idea of a proposal restricting new DYK noms until previous issues are addressed (every one of Diva's DYKs needs to be checked), but 1) if DYK were to institute something like that, in fairness, it would have to equally apply to other content review processes, but 2) CCI is so backed up that could result in editors being stalled on submitting new content until other editors were available to clear the CCI. So, that probably won't work ... but in this case, something still needs to be done to make sure Diva understands copyvio, plagiarism, and reliable sourcing (since one of the plagiarized articles was based on a non-reliable source). And all of Diva's articles still need to be checked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Every edit at User:Moonriddengirl/DivaKnockouts needs to be checked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And, starting through there, second article I checked had copyvio in English and a likely BLP vio as well. Admins needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I havent checked this before. I completely overlooked this response. I have been patiently working with this issue from the outside. I have not much time to dedicate to the project right now and the scarce time I got, I have to use it for all the things I have moving forward (3 RFCs upcoming, my training as clerk, also, I am a sitting mediator on es-wiki, etc). I have been taking care of the main problem rather than cleaning up the mess that is left behind, because if we don't do that, then we will have more copyvios to come. I have successfully taken care of most issues regarding the knowledge of copyvio (which, surprisingly, only around 5% of all active editors know about) and how to deal with it. When I have time, I will do an en masse copyedit with the help of some friends on all articles edited by Diva to get rid of all the issues, but that will have to wait a bit. I am truly sorry that I cannot completely dedicate to this at the moment, but RL is keeping me far from it. Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 22:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some help with acridine orange would be appreciated

Hi Sandy... I was looking at the acridine orange page, particularly the reactions section, and it seems to me to be obviously lifted from somewhere. I think it is a badly done paraphrase / copyvio of this product insert. Most of the material was added in December 2011 by an editor (Happysmilesmile (talk · contribs)) who hasn't edited since. Should I just revert back to this pre-addition stub? Talking to the editor seems pointless and the current article can't be allowed to stand, in my view. Somew help or advice (or both) would be appreciated. Thanks, Sandy - I hope you don't mind my asking here, it seemed to me more likely to lead to good advice in a timely way. EdChem (talk) 02:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the editor history, it does seem that reverting is the fastest way forward, with a message on article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Homework FAC

I think I have addressed all yout concerns here. Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 01:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review FAC later today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elephant

Hi, Sandy. Do you think that "Elephant" is approaching FA standard? If not, I shall ask LittleJerry to withdraw the FAC. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is a tough one as I'm not seeing gross prose clangers but reasonably I am making frequent minor tweaks that just give it a tighter, nicer flow....and I have read the article once through and gone back to bits here and there (and there's more to find). I am juggling a few things myself currently and free time is patchy. I think we're getting there, and I think this is one of those core articles we really should be trying to polish well. Long/broad articles are tricky in that exponentially more issues crop up (which is natural but damn hard when you've got your shoulder to the FAC wheel). Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked yet today (been busy for a few days), but my sense is that it could make it if more reviewers would pay attention to the prose and insist on FA-level prose ... a trend has taken hold at FAC where tedious, plodding, unorganized prose has been passed over by reviewers ... we can do better than chunk in a bunch of facts without regard to professional, flowing, smooth prose. I know articles like these are tough to take on, but we shouldn't lower standards. I'll look in again today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Debbie 1961 FAC

Sorry for not getting back to you sooner on this FAC. I've been a bit distracted, as JasonRees mentioned, by my works at school and haven't had the time to sit down and focus on fine-tuning Debbie's article. I have some time today to address issues with the remainder of the article, namely regarding the potential redundancy issues you mentioned. I'll give you another message once I've finished combing through the article more thoroughly. Thanks for your review! Best regards, Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through the article a few times and got others off-wiki to go through it as well. There wasn't too much to go through but I made a handful of changes. Hopefully now it's up to par with FAC standards. Best regards, Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review FAC later today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Journal

How about being on the editorial board? Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#JMIR_Wiki_Medical_Reviews. Best! Biosthmors (talk) 20:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

George Harrison

Hi Sandy, I've mentioned you here as I wondered if you could advise; are the trims and tucks we have done sufficient to address your concerns abut wordiness, or do we need more reorganisation? I only ask you because I value your opinion. Incidentally, I am sorry; I think I was a bit rude to you one of the last times we interacted. --John (talk) 01:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review FAC later today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We would appreciate a follow-up at the Harrison FAC, as we feel that your concerns have now been addressed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

saw your name at FAR

if you wanna look, this one might have the dubious honor of being FAR-worthy: Panic of 1907. With Ucucha's link-checking tool, it has more red than Santa's suit. Not a good sign. if you don't wanna look, then just let it lay there, quivering. Tks. • Serviceable†Villain 09:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Renomination of Jainism

Hello, I am going to renominate the article on Jainism. Therefore, I would like to know whether the concerns that you raised in the previous nomination of this article have been addressed or not. Thanks. Rahul Jain (talk) 08:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(tps) I'd at least let the GA review go through first before trying FAC. That could take a long time though, so if that doesn't work for you try WP:PR. Wizardman 22:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New noticeboard

WP:WMFN. Best! Biosthmors (talk) 04:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Bismarck Sea

You recently suggested that I too easily supported articles on FAC so I have held off for a while. However, I have recently commented on the Battle of Bismarck Sea FAC, mostly suggesting improvements to the prose but also expressing concerns about the maps which I think are pretty inferior. Hawkeye7 is not bothered about my concerns. What do you think about the adequacy of the maps? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FAS

Hi Sandy, I just updated WP:FAS - if you get a chance could you please double check my work? Hope all is well with you, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Vamos A Celebrar

SandyGeorgia, can I ask you to do the close paraphrasing check on this one? Hahc21 says that he's fixed all the potential problems in that area, and there's a call for a new reviewer: since you're the one who found the problems originally, you're the best candidate to see whether they're still there. (If you don't have time at the moment and know someone else who could do it, that's also fine. But since it's a Spanish to English issue, it needs someone with those skills and who knows about identifying cross-language direct translation. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm checking back to see whether you're willing to review this or if I should find another reviewer. I noticed in another DYK review on a DivaKnockouts article you asked whether DYK has a mechanism where all other nominations of a submitter/creator are held up while copyvio issues are being addressed. There aren't any that I know of: all reviewers can do are to make sure that (in this case) the Spanish-sourced articles get more complete checks rather than the usual AGF, and that an extra eye is cast on other submissions. Which is what I'm trying to do here. Thanks for the help you've given so far on this issue. (I imagine that something could be brought to WT:DYK, such as has been done at WT:GAN, to gain consensus to prevent someone from submitting or reviewing for a while. It may even have happened in the past, before I started becoming active at DYK. But no formal process that I've ever seen.) BlueMoonset (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Computers in Biology and Medicine

Sandy, (and tps) the Wikimedia Foundation received an email from someone associated with the Journal Computers in Biology and Medicine

I probably took more words than necessary to explain why he should not be editing the article, but I also went on to surmise why Wikipedia's coverage of scholarly journals is likely to be a challenge. I'll drop my comments in a collapsed box below.

I know you have more to do on your plate than you can handle, but I thought if anyone were familiar with the journal, it would be you, and if not you, then you might suggest someone who could help get it beyond a stub.

My thoughts regarding articles on scholarly journals

padding

As a former editor of a professional journal, I can sympathize with your concerns. I agree with your observation that "scholarly assistance is something sorely needed at wikipedia". On the one hand we do have some success stories, on the other hand, there are major gaps.

If I may ramble a moment, the interaction between Wikipedia and scholars is an uneasy one. Within scholarly communities, expertise is highly valued. While ultimately, science triumphs, whether done by a Nobel Laureate or a high school student, one generally know who one is more likely to believe if one of them makes an interesting claim and the other disagrees. Wikipedia, deliberately, and somewhat proudly, takes a different approach, believing that the cv of the person making the statement is irrelevant. That approach can be taken to absurd extremes.

However, the nature of the landscapes are different. Scholars, almost by definition, are pushing boundaries, trying to find new ideas, new relationships, new concepts, new theories of explanation. Wikipedia, in contrast, deliberately eschews the cutting edge, not ashamedly, but deliberately. Almost every day, someone wants to use the high profile of Wikipedia to announce some new discovery. Such attempts are universally removed. Our goal is to be a repository of the body of knowledge that is known, not to push the boundaries. While no serious researcher would ever contemplate using Wikipedia to announce a new finding, this isn't something we miss, it is something we want to avoid. We believe new ideas should be posted in established journals, where experts can review the claims, and accept the paper only if it meets their rigorous standards.

Wikipedia relies heavily on the existence of scholarly journals. If someone wants to add a relatively new concept to an article, we want to see that the concept has been through the fire of peer-review. While many of our editors would not be qualified to sit on a peer-review panel, that expertise isn't needed. We need the ability to read a scholarly paper, and determine whether a statement in an article is supported by the paper, but that level of expertise doesn't require a doctorate in the subject matter. (Of course, for some subjects, familiarity with the subject matter is helpful. I do know which editor to contact when there is a medical question, for example.)

Sorry, that was more of a ramble than I intended, but it provides a backdrop for what otherwise might be a puzzling position of Wikipedia.

One of the five pillars of Wikiepdia is Neutrality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars

That strong guiding principle means we do not want editors working on an article when they are "too close" to the subject, because we believe they will, even if not deliberately, unconsciously write in a way that is more positive about a subject than we feel is appropriate for an encyclopedia. This creates a challenge in a number of areas, and scholarly journals is one such area.

Obviously, the managing editor of a journal is highly knowledgeable about the journal, almost certainly more knowledgeable than anyone else. However, because of our Conflict of interest guideline: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Coi

We would prefer that the managing editor of a journal not directly edit the article. We believe the publisher is in a similar position. When it comes to an article about Apple Computers, we don't want the CEO to edit the article, but there is no shortage of editors interested in the company. With a scholarly journal, there are fewer editors who are independent of the journal, yet have an interest in writing about the journal. Second, we want independent references to support claims in the article. Peer-reviewed Journals don't often write about their competition, and the New York Times doesn't often find a professional journal to be a likely subject for an article (except when there are problems), so we have the dual problems of not enough editors independent of the journal, and not enough references for editors to use.

I'll also make a specific point about the content you added. When you use a phrase such as "revolutionary advances being made in the application of the computer to..." it raises a red flag to a reviewer. We would never permit such a phrase by an editor, and can only use such phrasing if it can be found in independent references. Even then, if there is a simple reference with such a characterization, it would probably be reverted. While you are no doubt proud of the journal, and certain that the phrasing is accurate, it isn't the type of phrasing we like to use. I haven't spoken to the editor who cut back the article to a bare stub, but I feel fairly certain that this and some other phrases triggered the decision.

Finally, I will reach out to an editor who does a lot of work related to medical articles to see is she would be willing to help. I can't promise anything, as she is overworked, but I can ask.

This isn't getting a lot of responses - can anyone suggest a better venue to ask?--SPhilbrick (Talk) 15:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SPhilbrick, I have noticed that SandyGeorgia has been absent since january 30th. I would recommend you to ask either on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Neuroscience or on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer science depending on which part of Computers in Biology and Medicine is the most important one. With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 18:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm trying at the first of the two. --SPhilbrick (Talk) 14:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gimmebot

Gimmebot is currently missing in action and I started a thread at WT:FAC. Doing a little digging, I saw that you once had the "manual instructions" in your sandbox. I went snooping through the history (sorry!) to find this version, but I'm not sure it is up-to-date or not. Just thought it was worth letting you know (as well as polite, after I was rooting around your sandbox!), as you may know if anything else needs doing if the bot is down for a while. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kareena Kapoor FAC

Hi Sandy! Would you mind to take a re-look at the article Kareena Kapoor which is in FAC ? You did have a quick look earlier, and was disappointed due to poor prose.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking input

Your input would be greatly appreciated here. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Just saying Hi, I hope you are okay and on a nice (wiki)holiday! Lova Falk talk 10:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question on a Featured Article Criteria proposal

I started a proposal at WT:GAN to require that all online sources be archived using WebCite or a similar archiving service before being passed. One of the comments mentioned that it wouldn't make much sense for that to be a GA requirement when FA doesn't require it. I just archived a couple of my own links and it's a relatively simple process so I don't think it is a burden. There are also a large number of editors (mostly seen over at Meta:CiteWeb who would be willing to perform the archiving). What would be the appropriate venue to suggest this for the featured article criteria? Ryan Vesey 20:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FAC

Hello sir, we would like your suggestions on the fac. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Priyanka Chopra/archive1. Please , review it and represent your thoughts. Thank You.Prashant ✉ 18:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stalled DYK nom of Vamos A Celebra

Hi. I am not fully certain of all the DYK rules. I have just finished a full review of a stalled DYK nomination which I believe your reviewed too. I have proposed an alternate hook and I understand I cannot approve my own hook proposals. Are you allowed to approve my hook? If so, after such approval, the article is good to go --Senra (talk) 12:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara McClintock FAR

Hi Sandy - You commented a while ago at WP:Featured article review/Barbara McClintock/archive1. The article has undergone quite a bit of work, and the review now needs additional comments. If you have the time and interest, would you mind returning to the article to expand or revise your existing comments? Thanks in advance, Dana boomer (talk) 16:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're missed

I hope you're doing well! Best wishes. Biosthmors (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I miss you too. I hope you are having a good break. --John (talk) 22:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with above, hopefully everything is ok Secret ^account 03:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Need you help in FAC

Hi Sandy, do you have time to help for making HIV/AIDS FA? The article's content is complete and it just needs a review to modify per MoS or some other minor copyedit changes. Thanks in advance ●Mehran ^Debate● 04:37, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mehran, I have noticed that SandyGeorgia has been absent since january 30th. With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 16:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh so bad! Thanks for informing. Can you introduce me someone who could help me with this issue or I should wait for Sandy? I restate that the article just needs to a brief glance and apply some changes per MoS, maybe you could help too! ●Mehran ^Debate● 16:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, she is badly missed. I suggest asking on the talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine. As for me, I'm sorry, way too many things on my to-do list as it is... Lova Falk talk 17:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope she comes back soon. Thank you very much Lova. ●Mehran ^Debate● 18:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jainism: Peer review request

Hello,

The article has been improved significantly since its first and second nomination which you reviewed. I have listed the article for a peer review. If possible, I would like your review in it. The link to the peer review is: Wikipedia:Peer_review/Jainism/archive2.

Thanks

Rahul Jain (talk) 11:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

George Harrison

Hi, Sandy. Since you commented at the original FAC for George Harrison, I wonder if you wouldn't mind giving it a second look for the current FAC when you get a chance. As always, any input you can provide will be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For the amazing work you have done over the last number of years improving and maintaining some of Wikipedia's most viewed medical articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Like — Thegreatdr (talk) 15:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Like — Lova Falk talk 08:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Like — Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Miss you, but I can't say that I'm really feeling it anymore around here either, so I understand. MastCell ^Talk 15:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable Sources

I have another question regarding RS. It's Venezuela related, so I sent a message to a few people in Wikiproject Venezuela (yourself included) with the hopes that you might be able to shed some light on this issue.

Here is the RS/N discussion ([1]).

Thanks for your help!Justiciero1811 (talk) 23:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Causes of Autism article and the Maternal Antibody Theory

Hi Sandy. I was wondering if you could take a look at the talk page for the above mentioned article. There seems to be a review now. I am not sure I could neutrally add any info, as I have been arguing about this stuff for so long. I would appreciate it if you could take a look. I will also ask Colin to take a look. Thanks! Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Assignments

I would very much appreciate your help (and talk page lurkers too) in drafting a new policy to deal with assignments, particularly student. See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Assignments (student editing) and the draft at Wikipedia:Assignments. Thanks. Colin°^Talk 10:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FAC

Could you take a look at the FAC of Ra.One? Your input would be much appreciated. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 10:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]