User talk:SandyGeorgia

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 110 as User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch109 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

About meTalk to meTo do listTools and other
useful thingsSome of
my workNice
thingsYukky
thingsArchives

I usually respond on my talk page, so watch the page for my reply, as I am unlikely to use that ridiculous pingie-thingie.
I hate those pingie-thingies with a passion.
I have arthritis in my fingers, and an essential tremor in my hands; pings create another set of clicks my fingers don't want to deal with. If you know I have a page watchlisted, and you are able to remember my request, please do not ping me to those pages; I understand being pinged to pages I might not be watchlisting. But I much prefer the style of the "olden days" when we used to actually talk to each other on user talk pages.

MOS question

I asked a question at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#LEADALT and significance a few days ago, but I've not gotten a response. I think we need to settle the question in general, rather than article by article. If editors want both BritEng and AmEng in every opening sentence (whenever they aren't identical), or other slight variations, then the MOS should just say so. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I wouldn't have thought it possible to give a definitive answer. In some cases, the variation is so well known ("organize") that it's not worthwhile explaining it; when the term is a variant spelling and we can't assume readers will be familiar with the variants ("diarrhea", "airplane", "aluminum") it's probably worth including so readers don't think they've spotted a mistake and try in good faith to fix it; when the names are totally different ("acetaminophen", "Live Free or Die Hard", "semi") it's almost invariably going to be appropriate to put all the names prominently in the lead so readers don't think they've come to the wrong page. Asking at the MOS talkpage will just get a dozen people having an increasingly insane discussion, before ultimately coming to the conclusion that this isn't a matter for the MOS and needs to be handled on a case-by-case basis. ‑ Iridescent 19:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Before I answer, I will rant. This is precisely the kind of ABF, personalization and battleground that makes people not want to edit. I was gung-ho to get going on a plan for cleaning up all the medical FAs (User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox2), but the battleground attitude from that person and canvassed reinforcements has zapped me of any interest in continuing. It's about winning rather than discussing to come to consensus to find a solution that works across the board for all articles, and when Girth Summit tried to rein things in, he got fired at as well. So I've stopped caring. I will be darned if I am going to engage that kind of personalization and battleground over an apostrophe.

Having said that, yes, it is important to solve the big picture, because ... this is the second round. Keep in mind that Tourette syndrome inherited the problem quite simply because I gave her a courtesy notification that I mentioned the Down syndrome edit warring in my arbcase evidence. (20:27 April 15) Within hours of my courtesy notification to her talkpage, the TS article became the next battleground,[1] with all the same features seen at Down syndrome, and more. So, we have to solve this globally lest it move to other articles. And we have this situation in many places.

I was hoping that we would get feedback at the RFC talk page for how to best phrase a broader RFC, and what page to put it on. Nothing happening there. As you can see, we may need to go to the main WT:MOS page to get anyone to care.

But Iridescent is right ... how to best phrase it is problematic, because every situation is different. I have explained ad-nauseum (bludgeon is a theme lately?) that the TS situation is quite different from most medical conditions because NO ONE (on either side of the pond) uses the real names, and even the Brits most frequently drop the apostrophe. One size does not fit all. I endorsed the apostrophe at Down's, but Tourettte's just doesn't need it because Tourette's is a common abbreviation.

I could also post to WT:MED to get more feedback, but we've seen how that goes ... it won't solve the problem. I am beyond caring, but open to suggestions. You can see that I've mostly stopped editing ... it's stuff just like this that makes me give up and fade away. It is unbelievable that people can get so personal over an apostrophe. What if you put together a draft RFC in userspace and we post it to WT:MOS? I feel like it should encompass things like color/colour as well as Down/Down's, and this one. As far as I can tell, the MOS pages are mostly silent on this issue. It's like fighting over infoboxes or date delinking, and I didn't do either of those, and don't want to do this.

I just want to write articles. Ceoil has the right attitude. It's too easy to be chased out of here again, and I don't want to be doing this with the kind of unnecessary attitude we're facing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Iridescent, I posted a link at WT:MOS (to direct them to WT:MOSLEAD) three days ago, and I didn't get a single peep. I expected to get a dozen people with firm opinions, and I've gotten nothing. If this radio silence doesn't end, I may have to invoke Cunningham's Law, make a bold edit to the MOS, and wait for someone to object. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:31, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

This part of the frustration ... radio silence, complicated by dealing with an editor who refuses talk Page discussion. It more and more feels like there is no way to resolve the simplest of disputes in here. Even sadder, I remember When Down syndrome was a fine Featured article ... now rather than restoring content to its former glory, we worry over apostrophes. It’s foolishness, as our content deteriorates. I just restored Tourette syndrome with three Brit Eng editors, and not one of them had an issue with the apostrophe. Of course, they were more concerned with writing a top-notch article. Why write top content to end up spending so much time dealing with editors Who refuse to even discuss civilly over an apostrophe. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:20, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

In the particular cases of Tourette('s) and Down('s), I'd lean towards bolding both variants in the first sentence. Because the apostrophe variants are in such common circulation, and because common conditions like Alzheimer's, Lou Gehrig's disease and Parkinson's mean readers are used to the principle that "a condition named after a person is written in the possessive", so it's reasonable to assume that at least some readers will be confused as to why Wikipedia isn't following what they reasonably assumed was a medical convention. (FWIW, in 30 years in the UK I have never seen either written without apostrophe-s; this isn't some archaic affectation like the people who insist on using "connexion" and "shewed".) ‑ Iridescent 07:53, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I get that part, Iridescent but have a look at the article and the abbreviations used (which are most common). We already have Tourette's as an abbreviation, which is used 161 times in the article. I don't want to spell out the full Tourette syndrome 161 times, and if I switch all of those to just TS, doesn't it become tedious reading? I need to solve the overall picture-- where the lead is now all balled up in redundant use of 's, but what to use in the body of the article? If I remove the Tourette's abbreviation from the lead, and switch all abbreviations to TS, doesn't that move in the opposite direction of what the UK proponents want to achieve? I haven't removed the 's from the lead because, not gonna edit war an apostrophe, but I still have to solve the abbreviation issue. Down syndrome doesn't use abbreviations, and Down syndrome is not a featured article and doesn't have vetted prose. And say "Tourette's syndrome" ten times together out loud and you can see why it is shortenend to Tourette's. The double s does not flow-- a problem you don't have when the second word is "disease" like Alzheimer's. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

That article might make a good example, because there are three nearly identical names (Tourette syndrome, Tourette's syndrome, TS, Tourette's) in the first sentence. I suspect, though, that people would vote to keep 1, 2, and 3, rather than the original 1, 3, and 4.

And since there isn't a clear ENGVAR here, it wouldn't really deal with the celiac/coeliac cases. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Like I said, I am beyond caring how it is resolved, but just need to fix the rest of the article now and do not want to do it with the continual battleground and personalization. If we are left with only TS as an abbreviation, we will be left with tedious writing in exchange for adding one obvious word to the lead, but not my problem— the article has already run TFA, and the tedious overuse of TS will be someone else’s issue. How much happier would I be if we were instead cleaning up the hugely deficient FAs at most of these eponymous conditions ... Alzheimer, Huntington, Parkinson, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

My preference in that particular case would be "Tourette syndrome (TS), also known as Tourette's syndrome, is a…". If the possessive version isn't there, people who only know it by that name might reasonably be confused and think there's a letter missing. (Bear in mind that even in the US where the "Tourette" name is more common, a significant chunk of readers will be Nirvana fans who've been drawn to the topic by the song "Tourette's".) TL;DR summary; whatever the topic, if there's a variant spelling in common use and it's not such a well-known variation that all readers will be aware of it already, bold both in the first sentence. ‑ Iridescent 19:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but then, Iridescent would you think it useful to go through the entire article to remove all 161 instances of the abbreviation "Tourette's", converting them to either the full name, Tourette syndrome, or the abbreviation TS? That is, we would be eliminating all of the Tourette's from the article, because it's no longer the abbreviation listed, and we can't delete the TS abbreviation, because it's needed for TS-only and pure TS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

No, as it's obvious from context that "Tourette's" is a contraction of "Tourette's syndrome". It's no more problematic than the fact that Sunbeam Tiger just refers to "Tiger" rather than writing the name in full every time. ‑ Iridescent 21:36, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Iridescent. So I will propose on article talk that we drop the abbreviation from the lead, but keep the what-you-say is obvious abbreviation in the text, and see if that flies. I’ll do that when I’m ready to dive back in to that mess again ... within a day or two ... Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm trying to find the general rule here, so @Iridescent: Would you open Barclays with "Barclays, originally known as Barclay's..." ? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:41, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Barclays never had an apostrophe, so in that case no. For something that dropped the apostrophe years ago like Harrods I wouldn't; the purpose in this case isn't to avoid confusion (nobody searching for "Selfridge's" is going to think they're on the wrong page when they land on Selfridges), but to avoid the risk of good faith editors trying to correct it. Thus for something that only recently dropped the apostrophe like Waterstones, I would include it to make it obvious from the start that the name has recently changed and this isn't an error on Wikipedia's part. (If you're a fan of lame edit wars, watchlist this company which is called "Dunkin" in the US and "Dunkin Donuts" in the rest of the world, and enjoy the endless arguments over which name is an error.) As with all these "name variation" things, there isn't necessarily going to be a hard-and-fast rule; there will always be some cases where the story of how the apostrophe came to be lost or added is itself an interesting enough part of the story to warrant inclusion in the lead. (A good example would be Tim Hortons, where the dispute with Quebec nationalists that led to the dropping of the apostrophe is the only interesting thing that ever happened to the company.) ‑ Iridescent 17:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

It sounds like your general rule might be to put a variation in the first sentence if omitting it is likely to attract good-faith corrections otherwise. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposed ... [2] ... WhatamIdoing, if adopted, this simplifies the bigger picture for the RFC, since TS is unique in rejection of DSM/WHO names. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Well. Anyway. @WhatamIdoing and Iridescent:, what is good timing for beginning to design an RFC? The problem here is that TS is just not a good example, since commonname for it rejects both ICD and DSM, but we need to get this resolved. I suggest a broader RFC, at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#RFC on article titles with spelling variations SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I think that the general question at LEADALT needs to be settled before trying to handle it at MEDMOS. Three people have replied there so far. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I did not realize I had not watchlisted that page ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Eh

How fitting. Drmies (talk) 01:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

My middle name. Drmies I used to have something installed that prevented this from happening. I don't remember what it was or where to look for it or why I no longer have it. Are you able to enlighten me? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

New editor "patrol"

Hope all is well with you and your family. After your note from July, I definitely took a step back and remembered that I, having read Wikipedia for years, seen it in the news, and made some minor changes as IP, was very fortunate to find the existence of WP:Pharmacology and WT:MED to ask for help/review. Many editors are not so fortunate and are met with reversions, "policy vomit" (such as just saying "needs WP:MEDRS, this isn't okay per WP:CITEWATCH, see WP:RSP", etc), and thus likely get discouraged or even threatened with blocks/bans for it. I'm mostly curious if there's any way you know of to "watch" for these new editors making medical edits, and potentially catch them for personalized intervention early on if their edits are reverted/undone by someone, thus potentially increasing the number of medical editors on Wikipedia.

Slightly off topic, but this is coming up now for me because I've personally tried to get a few colleagues interested in the articles I compiled re: the subject of medical injections - people ranging from 20ish years old and in school at the time to professionals with 20+ years experience - and the response I've gotten from all of them is either "it's too hard to edit" or something along the lines of "too many policies/rules" or "I tried it before and I got told to piss off with a bunch of rules that don't make sense to me". For all of them, though, they expressed reserved interest in potentially returning after I explained my experience with helpful editors who, while they were enforcing rules similar to what medical professionals use mentally every day, were nice and helpful in explaining them. Many people don't realize why "no primary sources" (well, very rarely) is a policy here - because they read primary sources every day. But when you explain to them "yes, we read primary sources, but we do not use one or two primary sources to override years of reviews/meta-analysis that says otherwise - we wait until enough primary evidence exists to override our past thoughts on the matter" - they seem to get it. In fact, I had someone ask me why our COVID articles seem to be lagging behind - but when I explained why (including the "we are an encyclopedia for the general public, not the breaking news journal of medicine"), I got virtually unanimous understanding. I'll stop giving examples of these interactions here now, but just wanted to provide some background.

One thing I noticed is that WP:MED has a "getting started" section that quite literally only links 4 policies - with no "new editor friendly" explanations at all. One of those "getting started" articles is even geared towards other WP editors, not new editors, so it's hardly a "getting started" article at all imo! {{subst:WPMED welcome}} is basically the same - basically all links links links with the only "explanation" a 2008 "signpost article". It also doesn't make very clear how to get help - it says go to the talk page, but that's hard for many newer editors to do. I get completely the desire to not "overwhelm" new editors with tons of information on their talk page, but surely links to specific, short (500 words at most) explanations of various things, or even an comprehensive "new medical editor" FAQ would help? Maybe I'm just not finding it, but I definitely did try - if I can't find it after a few months here, then new editors definitely aren't finding it if it exists.

So, I guess here's my final question: Where would be the best place to propose changes to new member welcoming - WT:MED, template talk page, or some other place - and what's the best process for "drafting" a template change - use my userspace, use a template page, etc?

Thanks in advance for your help with these questions, and while I could ping about 200 other editors you seem to always know who would be best to answer so I will kindly ask if you wouldn't mind pinging the specific people you think would be best to answer or provide more information here. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@Berchanhimez: after a few days off for a series of minor but irritating IRL issues, I am struggling to catch up. I'm making a To Do list, and I consider responding to this the most important/useful thing on that list, but I am pushing it down the list so I can catch up first on the easier-to-do tasks. This issue deserves my/our full attention, so I promise I will get to it once I've caught up everywhere else. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Hopefully less irritation now - you can ignore Talk:Resveratrol if you want - I think we got it figured out and came to a conclusion. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

One less to do is a relief, since today has been slow progress! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Please do not worry too much about this inquiry/"project" - while it's important to me and you, it seems to have gone unnoticed for months, if not years - thus another few days is definitely not likely to hurt any more. Please let me know if there's anything I can do to help you with any catching-up - you can also email me if that's easier than here. You did me a great favor when I first started and I haven't yet been able to repay it, so I'm happy to help with any "grunt work" or little projects you have that are hard or tedious to do :) -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

You are too kind :) The issue you raise is what matters most, and is why I am trying to get other stuff done and out of the way so that I can really focus on it.

If you really really really want to do some miserable work, you could go through Pheochromocytoma and flag all of the primary sources :) A lot of the text may be citeable to secondary sources, but student editors unfortunately used primary sources for most of the article, sample here. After I've flagged all the primary sources, I need to make a post to talk about the numerous tone and organizational problems in that article. Students are told to read MEDMOS and MEDRS, but it looks like they rarely do, and then they go forward with no guidance from WP:MED, until they suddenly want the article re-assessed as ... higher quality than it is in spite of all their work.

Or, if that kind of boring busy work isn't your cup of tea, you could also look at the mess I waded in to here, with a warning that it is at WP:ANI and at WP:SPI, and that ATC is someone I have mentored since their earliest days, and I know to be a good-faith editor who will listen to reason. Nonetheless, that page is a bit of a battleground, withe some pushing of strong viewpoints, and tiring.

Ah, the fun of Wikipedia. But I end up sticking around because of the good new editors who show up-- like you! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Will work on Pheochromocytoma tonight and tomorrow - rare day off work altogether so I should be able to get that done throughout the day tomorrow. Will tag with {{primary source inline}} and if iI notice any glaring problems try to fix them :) -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

You are amazing! I will give you my first-born. If the Air Force will let me :) As to why the issues you raise are so important, maybe you are following my work with User:Memdmarti, a good-faith topic expert. It is because of this work with Dan (and earlier same with User:Eyoungstrom) that I am realizing how problematic are all of the issues you raise and that we must figure out what to do about this. There is so much we understand and take for granted about Wikipedia practices, policies and guidelines that is complete gibberish to new editors, and yet we need to retain content experts. On top of that problem that exists for all of Wikipedia, we have the additional primary vs. secondary sources in medicine problem. That's why I want to get my other work done so as to focus on this. But then ... if we retained more content experts, I wouldn't have so much other work to do ... Catch-22. Anyway, I will make a longer response to you, but perhaps not til Wednesday, as I have the six-hour drive home from the cabin tomorrow, and then medical appt's Wednesday ... Perhaps WhatamIdoing will resurrect in the meantime her post to WT:MED from a month or so ago that explained how to locate new editors from the tools we already have. I gave up on that, because the first new editors I encountered sent me into The Black Hole of Despair ... there are only 24 hours in a day, and I don't have time to take on what is seen in most new editors one encounters: COI, POV pushing, and a whole lotta mentoring needed! More later, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Just a forenote - I only had enough energy for that one section tonight (surprisingly, it takes a lot more than I expected to plug in to pubmed and actually evaluate the sources themselves). Please do not worry about the timing of this as much - heck, it's taken me months to actually realize that I was an anomaly in new medical editors, a few more days isn't going to hurt. I have a theory that has no proof whatsoever behind it, but I think it'd likely hold true however... that most new medical editors that look to have a COI or "pov" they are pushing are actually just attempting to add their real-life experience to the editing process. Someone who's treated a thousand or so patients and 80% of those patients claim that glucosamine works for them - well that doctor may very well want to come attempt to "fix" that information on Wikipedia. Is that a "pov pushing"? I don't really consider it that - because it's not so much a "point of view" as an experience. Likewise (this is a hypothetical, not sure if it actually happens/exists), you may have a pharmacist show up who's taught in Pharm.D. school that generic drugs are just dandy and fine - and so they may try to remove information regarding differences in excipients or quality control that are sourced appropriately to MEDRS reviews - because they think it's "wrong" simply because they don't understand why it's what it is. Long story short, I think a majority of medical editors are good - and if there were simply a way to have a dynamic list of "reverted edits from new editors on medical articles" that would help greatly with targeted outreach.

Regardless, I hope your drive and appointments go well, and I will continue working on marking primary sources in that article tomorrow. For now, I shall be taking my daily comatose state time (also known as sleep) :) -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 06:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Yep, flagging up issues in student editing takes GOBS more time than it would take to just rewrite the article from scratch; it is frustrating, but I feel I have to leave a list on talk explaining all the issues and why it can't be assessed higher, and I really appreciate your help. Sourcing and tone are the most significant problems there (although I have already removed and addressed the worst of the tone problems).

I have similar ideas about the POV/COI thing, as I realize just how difficult it is for new editors to grasp the way things work in here. Maybe you can answer a question: why did you "get it"? What made the difference for you? Did you participate for half a century as an IP or something ? :) :) You seem to have missed the newbie stage (mine was eternal, and I used the HelpMe template enough times to set a record). Sleep well ! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, all! Quick note to say that I am alive, healthy (so far) despite all of the COVID-19 issues at my home university, and I will be picking up the ball and re-engaging with this in about 10 days (helping colleagues with a Sept 9 deadline, and still adjusting my teaching). I haven't disappeared, and sorry that I have not had more bandwidth. Best to all in the meantime! (10 days feels like another eon at the speed Wiki moves!) Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom (talk) 14:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, I never really thought about significant editing until after having seen articles in the news over the past few years re: Wikipedia's response to some controversies and medical articles - and figured I'd give it a go... but I definitely didn't want to screw it up. I saw an article in some news somewhere which mentioned the Wikipedia Medicine project or something similar, so after I dove in with lente insulin I went ahead and searched for a WikiProject that would cover it - finding WP:PHARMACOLOGY and then later realizing that WP:MED covers basically all of it too. I've seen editors with 200,000 edits, heck even some over a million - and I can't ever see myself getting there because even now I'm still spending lots of time looking for policies or guidelines or template documentations etc to try and make sure I'm doing things right. Back when I started, you can see I made a stub at lente insulin on 11 May, and took the entire rest of that day to actually get it to a somewhat viable length article.

Long story short, I think having seen articles in the news which covered "talk pages" and "wiki projects" where you can ask help is actually what enabled me to be confident enough to dive right in. This in addition to the fact that I'd been fixing typos/etc forever as I saw them (nothing more than a word or two change ever) as IPs so I kind-of had a concept of what the edit screen looked like.

So, why I "got it"? I'm not really sure - you'd think I'd be the person adding these primary studies without attributing them... but I guess it boils down to me realizing this: Wikipedia isn't the resident's table rounds, nor is it the bedside discussion with a patient - meaning basically that Wikipedia is more like the "medical textbook" - which doesn't list every study ever done. When there's only a few studies, we say that and, if the reader here is a clinician, they'll use their judgement to make a decision - we don't make the decisions for them, we just present the most complete and attributed if necessary information possible. I also note that quick intervention from people - the names I remember being you, RexxS, WhatAmIDoing, and BlueRasberry (left a "thanks for the new article" on my talkpage) were very encouraging and allowed me to build a mental list of those I could ask for help (which I've been doing, as you know ha ha). I'd also add that I most definitely have not finished "getting it" yet - I'm still making some mistakes but I'm still trying to improve. Thanks for the vote of confidence :).

Small PS, pheochromocytoma is done being marked through the Management section, I will try to get to the rest tonight, but it's turning out to be a little more than I thought it would. I've been marking them as I can, or changing the text to attribute the primary study where I feel it's important to include but would need attribution per WP:MEDRS. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Berchanhimez, I sometimes look at this link to find promising editors. If you like doing this, then this longer list might be better. WPMED would really benefit from someone reviewing these changes, salvaging whatever can be salvaged (most of it – most new folks are very grateful for help with the most basic wikitext fixes), and inviting promising (and even semi-promising) folks to stop by WT:MED or WT:PHARM for help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:12, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Berchanhimez I am finally turning my attention to your original post. And I am EVER so grateful for the work you did at pheochromocytoma, as I was beginning to despair that I would ever catch up; I sincerely appreciate that you did enough that I should be able to finish up a talk post over there explaining improvements still needed, should the same educational course take it on next term.

On finding promising new editors, here is the old post in archives from WAID-- I am unsure if this info is any different from what she gave you above. I know if anyone takes on that sort of work, it is really worth it for the viability of WP:MED. A little bit of background.

When I noticed you were a promising new editor, it seemed worthwhile to bring you into the fold, and you seem to be indicating here that was helpful; if we can do more of that, we can begin to rebuild WPMED. For a period of more or less five years, WPMED lost its focus on building top content, and turned into a Project focused externally on what was, in my opinion, encouraging the spread of deteriorating content to multiple languages. It also became focused on "whack-a-mole" (going after the POV pushers and quacks) with less than policy-compliant methods; when I posted to your talk about the akathisia editor, I was concerned that you (a promising new editor) had seen that sort of behavior in others and thought it the norm. I meant to point out that it shouldn't be the norm, and we need to get back to doing the hard work of bringing promising editors up to speed. Along with that, I've realized how very confusing Wikipedia can be to academics and physicians, and am aware of how much more we need to do.

You brought up the page WP:MED, as not really giving new editors the help they need to get started, and that is my BINGO point about the misdirection WP:MED took about five years ago, when it became more externally focused. This Is A Huge Issue We Must Correct. I think the editors who understand that now are Colin, WhatamIdoing and there is a recent WT:MED post from Tom (LT) about the misdirection the project took when it became more externally focused. So, you've hit on a big problem, but solving this problem will have to happen in baby steps, because it's still a bit of a hot potato after Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine, where I more or less raised all the same points mentioned by Tom (LT) in my evidence at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence.

I have been chipping away at trying to get the main page of WP:MED back to something more functional and useful for editors ON en.Wikipedia, as it had become almost entirely focused on editors OFF en.Wikipedia spreading external apps. We still have much more work to do to rebuild a well-functioning WikiProject, but I see it happening slowly but surely. There is much work to be done to rewrite both of our guideline pages, which were made less than effective over the last five years, at WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS. But your main question about where to start gets to the heart of the matter: we need to start by re-building a core of good and knowledgeable editors, who aren't interested in being internet bullies or playing whack-a-mole, rather who are mainly interested in building quality content on en.Wikipedia.

Where should you start work on a template? User:Berchanhimez/sandbox/WelcomeTemplate. Those who are following my page can follow your work there, and can post suggestions at User talk:Berchanhimez/sandbox/WelcomeTemplate. When you get it to a state we are happy with, then you could propose it at WT:MED, and we can hopefully work it in to what should become ongoing re-drafting of WP:MED, WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS, to get the Project back on the footing it was on five years ago, focused on retaining good editors and building top content.

I hope I've answered your question, but I have been so scattered because of trying to catch up, so please insist if I haven't given you the info you need. I also suggested to Ajpolino that an interview of newer editors in the WPMED newsletter could be very instructive for all of us ... thinking of you, Memdmarti, PainProf, Eyoungstrom, who can give us ideas of what we're doing right, what we're doing wrong, what would be helpful, etc. I've spent a lot of time with Memdmarti and Eyoungstrom, and it would be very interesting to see how your experience is different or similar to theirs. All the bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi all, stopping by because I was pinged. Berchanhimez, a much belated welcome! Apologies that I've not been around as much this month; busy month in real life. We should find a quiet week to have a larger conversation at WT:MED about our goals and priorities. Bringing new editors into the fold should be a top priority. Please try to note things that confused, challenged, and annoyed you as you got used to editing here. You'll find that all too soon you become blind to the initial hurdles, just like the rest of us. In the meantime, feel free to ping me if there's any way I can be useful! Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 22:06, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Ajpolino, thanks for the welcome :) - I started a welcome that I would have liked to get and would've been helpful had I not found WP:MED real quick to ask my questions to - but I completely see how it may be undesirable to include the FAQ portion in the welcome template - in which case I'm fine splitting it into two separate pages and working more just on the top part (the welcome part) - ideas? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:46, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

@Ajpolino: remember when I suggested you interview new and active editors for the WPMED newsletter? This thread gives you material ... Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Fixing the WPMED templates

To kind of give an overall update, we have User:Berchanhimez/sandbox/WelcomeTemplate and User:Berchanhimez/sandbox/New Med FAQ - ideally linking to the second from the first and having it visible in other locations, and the first being a template which can be given to new editors who have made edits (or problematic edits) in the medical field. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:17, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Berchan, lots of thoughts, I have to do some morning errands and will come back to this shortly, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Berchanhimez: I have many oberservations, which I'll enumerate for response:

1. I've worked over the last month to try to get the WP:MED page closer to something useful for newbies, as basic information was very hard to find, and was obscured by voluminous amounts of the page referencing instead off-en.Wikipedia projects. I'd be much happier in the long run if we worked towards removing Sections 10, 11 and 12 entirely, because all of those have moved and all are linked in Section 9 already. They are taking up space on the main page at the expense of everyday routine helpful tasks, information, and maintenance items that regular and newbie editors will need. The main WP:MED page became horribly user-unfriendly and unuseful over the last five years, focused instead on off-en.Wikipedia ventures. But that overhaul is for another day: for now, we can find the templates on the main page under Tools --> Templates at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Tools#Templates.
2. Considering the templates we already have, I suggest that your work should not be adding new welcome templates, rather replacing what is there now under "For other editors". We will need to gain consensus on this at WT:MED, once you have everything finished and ready to go.
3. While looking at the templates we have, I was shocked to find Template:EasyEn, which is disputed and a breach of broader Wikipedia guidelines. It was "Kept" on three !votes two years ago,[3] and should be sent to TFD again. Unsurprisingly, it is not used anywhere. I think we should delete it now from the project pages.
4. So, finally, turning my attention to your (excellent) template work. First, do you want to authorize others to work in your sandbox, or would you rather have others enter comments on talk, while you control the editing? It's your choice, but I highly recommend bringing in at this stage several other users. WhatamIdoing is key in anything at WP:MED. Colin has a remarkable clarity in prose and ability to make pages very user friendly, and I suggest having him help edit. And then I think it essential to consult a few more newbies like Memdmarti or PainProf. All too often, we generate these templates among experienced users, failing to understand the points that really hang up newbies.
5. For my own feedback on your work so far.
   1. If you want others to edit your userspace, I would go in and do some WP:MOS cleanup (things like WP:ENDASHes instead of hyphens). But Colin is such an excellent copyeditor that I may not be needed, if you authorize him to edit.
   2. Your first paragraph at User:Berchanhimez/sandbox/WelcomeTemplate is too long: students, for example, don't read anything, but Colin can bring that sort of clarity and brevity to prose.
   3. I also suggest setting these up so that one template can be transcluded within others-- that is, a basic welcome template could be transcluded to another version for students, or another version for someone we see getting off on the wrong foot, so we don't have to do everything twice or thrice.
   4. At User:Berchanhimez/sandbox/New Med FAQ, my pet peeve about cite ref is triggered :) :) For YEARS, basically all medical editing used the Diberri, now Boghog template, and I despise having to edit around four lines of code that contain fifteen times two = 30 (first and last) author names. For YEARS, all medical articles had a standard of more than five authors truncated to three, et al, vancouver style, and almost every WP:FA in the health realm is written that way. I don't want to encourage newbies to use one style, without making some mention of the alternate Boghog template. On almost every established medical article, if they use that built-in tool, they will be breaching WP:CITEVAR. We don't have to go full on to explain CITEVAR to them, but Featured articles must have consistent citations, and it is irritating as all heck to have to play secretary and clean up citations for other editors on FAs. We should somehow address this before recommending that miserable format.
      1. Separately, we have a pending problem that we are going to have to address sometime. For years, medical editors have argued that we don't have to cite pages on lengthy journal articles. This is bogus, and I don't know why we've gotten away with this, when no other content area can breach WP:V in this way. WP:FAC rejects it; see Complete blood count, Buruli ulcer and dementia with Lewy bodies for how we should be citing sources, with sections or page numbers when journal articles are lengthy. Most medical content is breaching a core policy, WP:V, and we may as well start educating students and new editors to do it right.
   5. And, finally, I think the best thing we can do for newbie editors is to point them to examples of our top quality articles: nothing like an example to show what is done and not done on Wikipedia. Most new editors will have no realization that we have an assessment system, and that some articles are better than others. Complete blood count will be an FA soon, Chagas disease just passed FAR, and our most recent Health and medicine FA is dementia with Lewy bodies. If we also want something in the neuropsych realm, Tourette syndrome was overhauled this year, and Graham's Introduction to viruses was also overhauled and is quite useful. I think once CBC passes FAC, you should work in these as examples for newbies to study.

That's all my thoughts for now! VERY FINE WORK !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I think it's a case of "too long, didn't read". A lot of websites sort of dribble information out over time, and I wonder whether that might be a better (if possibly more labor-intensive) approach. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:20, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I think Colin can bring enough clarity that it might get read ... good prose entices the reader to keep reading. And I'd like to hear from Memdmarti and PainProf. As a newbie, Berchan felt this kind of info would have helped him, so I want to listen seriously to that! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Good prose entices people to keep reading ...if they start. If your eyes glaze over and all you see is an oblong gray blur, then it doesn't matter how good the prose is, because you won't read any of it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:55, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

May not be able to work on this for a day or so but popping in from my phone to say yes anyone can edit in the two user space pages as they feel it would help! -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, my name keeps getting mentioned as some kind of prose wizard, which is undeserved. Yes I can have a go at writing or copyediting, but actually my main approach to reviewing text over the years is to point out issues or raise questions and usually the author can improve the text themselves. I agree with WhatamIdoing that the text is long. It is also rather scary. To be honest, "we do have some guidelines that are very important for editing medical articles, and failure to follow them may result in your hard work being undone by another editor" is imo the main problem with WP:MED: it is way too hostile to newbies and (as we saw very recently) it will happily go through your contribs reverting all your work for not being 100% in compliance. I wonder if our welcome template shouldn't just be a hearty welcome and a promise to help you if you have problems, and some links.

WhatamIdoing noted at another discussion that many medical leads contain text nearly all contributed by one author. I don't know which part of "Wikipedia is written collaboratively" that WP:MED didn't understand but this is way too close to the Scots Wikipedia fiasco, where the wiki failed to attract/retain sufficient knowledgable writers, one editor wrote half of the text, and, well you can read the article. WP:MED desperately needs to get back to being a collaborative writing project that is fully emersed in the wider English Wikipedia culture and which welcomes new editors.

Oh, and wrt "Sections 10, 11 and 12" of the WP:MED page, I fully agree. I think someone thought Wiki Project Med Foundation and WP:MED confused and thought they were the same thing. Wiki Project Med Foundation has moved off to another wiki. WP:MED is an English Wikipedia project and should focus on being that. -- Colin°^Talk 10:15, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think there is much evidence that the current "wider English Wikipedia culture" is one that "welcomes new editors". Our retention rate is one of the lowest out of all Wikipedias. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:58, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, Maybe I could replace that whole "scary" part (which I'll explain in a moment) with a simple "If you've gotten a notification your edit was undone, you can find some frequent reasons here", linking specifically to a "new editor commonly undone edits" (ex: primary source, advice tone, dated information, etc).

The reason I took the "scary" tone (which I'm not sure I'd call it that, but I respect it may look different to others) is because I think part of the problem may be that new editors are jumping right in without realizing that anyone can edit means anyone can undo your edits too - and thus they just dive right in making the edits they think need made without actually looking into whether they need made. I agree with WhatamIdoing below that WP is not very welcoming to new editors - the only reason I was actually welcomed and felt it is because I knew (from seeing in the news) that WikiProjects were a thing and I took a gamble and posted on the talk page of WT:MED and WT:PHARM.

I have already politely poked two users (well, hopefully in a polite manner, and regardless both seem to have realized their mistake) for using rollback against new users when the edits could've just as easily been fixed by minor edits - rollback of all things, which from the page describing it is only for pure vandalism. Unfortunately, I don't think either of the two new editors that had rollback used against them are still around, even after I tried to post on their talkpages with some help. I know nobody owns things on Wikipedia, but is there not some way we can rein in the use of rollback/undo by users outside WP:MED on MED pages? Maybe some sort of message we can send to those who are using it where simple fixes could be applied by someone more familiar with the rules to just fix the problem instead of undoing it altogether? Idk.

But knowing people will use rollback/undo on new editors is why I included that part - because if we tell them up front about collaboration and that "undo doesn't mean you're bad or wrong", maybe they'll not be so hurt and leave when their edits inevitably do get undone. I think this project is collaborative - at least from what I've seen, though I haven't dove into the "arbitration" that SandyGeorgia linked to me so maybe I'm missing big things going on. From my new experience, it was collaborative and help was literally thrown at me without any prejudice or anger for my mistakes - to me it just seems that a lot of times these new editors are pushed away by reversions/undo before they even have a chance. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:38, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Colin, I meant to ping you too but apparently that doesn't work with the template that replylink uses as a default, so here's a ping :) -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, my goodness, I've royally effed these pings - Colin, sorry for the two pings, and sorry for somehow labelling you as WhatamIdoing. I'm not sure how I messed that one up, so hopefully WhatamIdoing gets this ping - if not sorry for all these extra replies and junk. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing I did say "and" not "that". Only on WP:MED would you find a scheme to usurp collaboratively edited content with commercial videos that nobody can edit, or members arguing all the way up to Arbcom that longstanding Wikipedia policy does not apply to their editing domain because Big Pharma are killing people. Anyway, my 2p is that the welcome template should do that. Berchanhimez, I'm not an expert on policy but IIRC, using rollback for undoing good faith edits is such a no-no that if reported at AN, the rollback privilege is instantly and unquestionably revoked until such time the user later demonstrates they know what it is for. Berchanhimez, unfortunately Wikipedia got into a mode where those medical editors who simply reverted everything on their watchlist that wasn't perfect were held up as warriors holding the thin blue line against Wikipedia descending into chaos and alternative weirdness. Of course we should have high standards, but also we should not expect everyone to be up-to-speed on their first edit. It isn't easy. I'm not sure our template should be: "Welcome to our Photography club. Please don't mind too much if someone punches you in the face for taking a photo that doesn't comply with the Rule of thirds, they mean well..." -- Colin°^Talk 21:08, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Berchan, we'll probably need to take baby steps towards getting us all at WPMED on a footing we can endorse; lots of adjustments are needed, and too much at once may not be the way to go. Perhaps you would look at the existing templates and see which parts of your wording could be used to augment what is there now? And Colin is right that rollback should never be used except for obvious vandalism, and if editors persistently do so, they lose the right. WAID, {{tq|Our retention rate is one of the lowest out of all Wikipedias} is probably an example of sampling bias. Since the English Wikipedia is the most known and the first google result, it would be expected that we get a number more of editors who wade in but don't stay, for example, those who realize they aren't comfortable posting in a non-native language, after they posted to the English version because it is the most viewed, even if its hard for them to contribute in English. At least I see indications of that in my Spanish-language editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:07, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

To do

1. Check back in on Discrete trial training
2. Iri talk
3. Tom Anatomy FAC blurb User talk:Tom (LT)/sandbox/Anatomy newsletter 7
4. Wikipedia:Peer review/Squirm/archive1; WP:RECEPTION
5. CC office
6. User:Eyoungstrom Finish VMI
7. User:WhatamIdoing Lead RFC
8. Article work:

   Morgagni hernia

   habit cough

Some things

Before I get to the point, I would like to apologize for coming across as a bit terse on the talk page of discrete trial training. I really do appreciate your weighing in, and we have made more progress towards consensus in the one day of discussion with you than in the entire week before. However, I do have two concerns: Firstly, you pinged an editor that I had previously accused of harassment and asked him to participate in the debate. I think that you were aware that I had made this accusation, but please do correct me if that is not true. It could easily have been an accident. I really wish you hadn't done that, as this particular editor's choice form of harassment is to conduct content disputes that are not really content disputes, but attempts to drive another editor off the platform. His opinion may be well-respected in some areas of this encyclopedia, but his involvement in the dispute is going to make reaching consensus much more difficult.

Secondly, I would like to talk about the editor who invited you to join the debate. You appear to have some sort of mentoring relationship with him, and it is clear that he respects you. However, his lack of understanding of WP:MEDRS guidelines are a major issue in taking this debate forward. Perhaps you could give him some coaching? I have tried that many times, and he just doesn't listen to me. If you would correct him about claims of the sort that he is making here, where he tries to use MEDRS to justify the removal the mass removal of content that has nothing to do with health claims, that would be big progess on reducing his tendatiousness. Again, I would like to reiterate how much I appreciate your attempts to bring us to consensus. I hope that you continue to participate in discussion, and that we can reach consensus. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 21:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

There's that busted AGF-ometer again. "I think that you were aware ... " and no, I was not. I am NOW aware, and a bit troubled about the history that you reveal, along with your accusations about other editors, but no, you are wrong that I pinged Alexbrn because I was aware of your history. I saw that he had engaged on your talk page when I went to welcome you, thinking you were new, and I knew that he could help me sort out whether the article was a review. Just that simple.

The best thing you can do at this point is to NOT personalize disputes or discussions, as you recognize we are on a good path towards consensus. Whatever past you had with Alexbrn is best forgotten and left behind. You are doing similar with respect to ATC-- focusing on the person rather than the content. Yes, I was a mentor to ATC a decade ago on tic-related articles when they were new and learning, and I have found them to be eager to learn, reasonable in discussion, willing to listen, and always aiming towards policy compliance. In short, I have found ATC to be a non-disruptive, good-faith editor. I have always coached them, when needed, and I find in THIS issue and in this discussion that they are being tempered and reasonable and willing to listen and engage in considered discussion as always. That's the way to go, and the way you should proceed. The advice that SarahSV gave you on the ANI is sound,[4] and I hope you'll consider it.

I won't be able to catch up over there on talk until later tomorrow, as I am in the car, six-hour drive home from cabin, typing on iPhone hotspot. I hope by the time I get over there to start proposing text and sources that I will find things are calm and collaborative. If I can, then, I will also look at Lovaas, but I am disinclined to weigh in to yet another contentious topic unless you, too, work to focus on content rather than editors. Leave behind personalities and strong opinions about what you want articles to state and focus instead on what usable sources have to say. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Hey! I had reason to suspect that you might be aware of the harassment allegation, as it was discussed in an ANI thread that you contributed to. I now see that I was wrong. However, I strongly suggest that you do take a look as Talk:Ole Ivar Lovaas, because when you see how ATC acted there, it will be very difficult for you to reconcile his editing with the claims that he is "willing to listen and engage". This message was intended to be an olive branch. I fully understand that you are acting in good faith, and I really do appreciate your contributions to the talk page. As for my AFG meter, I've gone a little bit past assuming bad faith where ATC is involved. As you can see here, I was recently attacked by a seven year old sleeper sock, and I have accused ATC of being the master. If I am wrong I will owe him a big apology (to say the least), but I don't think I'm wrong. You are, of course, free to weigh in. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 22:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Here's what I see at Lovaas:

• You start a quite inflammatory section, using neurodiversity.com as your source:[5]
• I guess this may be you (?), but there are no diffs, so am not going to try to track down the old concern, but the poster is focusing on editor, not content. IF the OP HAD focused on content, there would be diffs and usable sources, rather than hyperbole aimed at Alexbrn. [6]
• Another personalized section heading:[7] I find you being very intimidating, threatening and accusatory with "last warnings", and ATC keeping their cool and trying to dialogue anyway. Your threats towards ATC hinge on *your* interpretations of select sources, while others have done the work to find a broader representation of sources. So, you may find that taking a different tone in dialogue will produce more lasting results. I do not have a subscription to newspapers.com, so cannot comment on how well you are representing sources. I hope you understand that you got off on the wrong foot by personalizing disputes, and I hope that will end. We don't ask editors to never make mistakes; we ask them to AGF and not turn Wikipedia into a battleground. In the discussion in which I *am* engaged, if I see problems with ATC then I will discuss them there, but I have no interest in wading in to another article to review the entire history where a disagreement has become entirely personalized. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but if that's your analysis, it's clear that you can't be neutral on issue's of ATC's behavior. It looks like I'm just going to have to wait for that socking investigation to go through. Regardless, I am glad to see that you have still managed to remain neutral content-wise. You don't have to worry about the dispute on discrete trial training going on with out you-- I have little hope you making progress with those other two editors while you are not involved, so I'm not even going to try until you come back. Stay safe, and please remember not to Wikipedia and drive. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 22:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Note: for source 4, neurodiversity.com is not the source, but the hosting service, the source is life magazine. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 22:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• Neurodiversity.com is committing a breach of copyright, while claiming Fair Use. [8] See WP:ELNEVER; we should never be linking to that, btw (I am unaware if it was linked in the article, or just on talk, and not interested in checking, as I am not and do not intend to be involved in that article). Now that I am home (I was posting from an iPhone all day yesterday from the car), I'll add that I have an interest in making sure our articles that discuss current interventions for neuropsych conditions be as accurate and up to date as we can make them; I have no interest in diving in to the biography about the 50-year-old work of a man who has been dead for 10 years. That is, I will work to make sure we accurately reflect updated sources at discrete trial training, but I have neither the time nor the interest to dig in to Ole Ivar Lovaas any further, particularly with a battleground tone on its talk page. As I said, if I see a problem with ATC at DTT, I will address it there. I have seen no such problem there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• @Wikiman2718: As you have been told by others, making unevidenced accusations of harassment is a WP:PA. You have done this in the past and are still doing it. That you are making such attacks cannot be a reason why I, or any editor, should not be involved a topic you are interested in. You are now doing the same with ATC. In general, your approach to Wikipedia appears to be contaminated by a WP:USTHEM attitude which apparently leads you into imagining elaborate plots against you. The solution is clearly set out in WP:FOC; I strongly recommend following this for everybody's sake. Alexbrn (talk) 04:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

There was a ton of behavioral evidence that those accounts were connected. The sock’s username was even ATdevil, a pun on ATC. I’m going to try to get this re-opened. Wikiman2718 (talk) 12:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Facepalm Huh? Fluellenism is not "evidence", only of (as I wrote) your "imagining elaborate plots against you". A period of contrition from you would be appropriate at this time, after you have struck-out your many now-falsified accusations, and written your promised "big apology" to ATC that is. Alexbrn (talk) 12:47, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Then you acknowledge that the usernames are connected, but ascribe this to coincidence. Given that the account is an obvious sleeper sock (registered in 2013 with no edits until six days ago), your coincidence theory makes less sense. These accounts are connected. Wikiman2718 (talk) 18:09, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I am willing to work on CONTENT at discrete trial training, but I do not appreciate having personal attacks furthered on my talk page at a time when I am struggling to catch up with a backlog of work. Please stop using my talk page to create a battleground and continue personal attacks in spite of evidence to the contrary. Repeating: WP:FOC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Discrete trial training#Effectiveness

On the “Fringe” subsection of the effectiveness of the DTT talk page, I found two reliable recent sources that state ABA and DTT are evidence-based practices. Alexbrn approved of the sources. Any thoughts on the talk page? ATC ^{. Talk} 16:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC) ATC ^{. Talk} 16:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, ATC; I was in the car all day yesterday (hubby driving while I was posting from iPhone), and I am still trying to catch up. I have not forgotten you or the article, and promise to get back there just as soon as I can. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

No problem, Sandy! Take as long as you need. By the way, when I first started out and as you guided me on here back in 2007, I was only 13. Now, I'm 26. Talk about a long time that has passed since then! :) ATC ^{. Talk} 22:54, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Wow, I had no idea :) That is awesome, ATC ! Let's say you were a handful as a teenager, who turned out fine :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Haha, well back then I initially didn't know how to respond to my talk page, that Wikipedia had rules and policies, and what edit wars, sock puppeting, and copyright infringement were! :) ATC ^{. Talk} 01:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I am so glad to have this perspective, ATC; I think SarahSV might appreciate it, too. I am slowly catching up, and hope to get over to the article by tomorrow. I am so far behind in the things I owe people, I despair. But tomorrow is a new day. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Circumcision and HIV 2

Hello, we added my proposal to the article. But would love to hear your thoughts on it. Prcc27 (talk) 16:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

With consensus? I don’t want to wade back in to a mess ... ??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

It's not a rock solid consensus at the moment, but it is a consensus nonetheless. I'll get back to you when the talk page mess dies down. Prcc27 (talk) 20:38, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Much appreciated, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Just to give you an update, the Royal Dutch Medical Association, the AAP, and the CDC viewpoints were added with consensus. Please feel free to propose tweaking what we currently have. Adding the CPS and RACP viewpoints has also been proposed, but there isn't consensus for that yet. Prcc27 (talk) 22:52, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

To clarify, the consensus is strong- not weak. Prcc27 (talk) 04:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Prcc27 thanks for letting me know-- I added what I can, but don't have time to watchlist. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Mouse invasion???

Heh. Such fun! The cats here are into "chase the fall mice invasion" also... but they are doing well on the catching of the mice. I woke up to provisions this morning... I'm pretty sure the cats don't think I'm capable of taking care of myself...--Ealdgyth (talk) 20:38, 6 September 2020 (UTC)