User talk:SandyGeorgia

The Barnstar of Diplomacy

I found the time to read through your comments at the close review at AN and wanted to thank you for stepping in. Managing conflicts can be hard: looking at the context of the dispute, identifying issues, and raising them politely but firmly with colleagues is not easy work, so it's nice when people step up to ensure a healthy community. Thanks for setting a good example! — Wug·a·po·des 07:37, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		The Special Barnstar
		Thank you for all you have done. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 03:38, 19 November 2023 (UTC)                                                                                                                                                        [reply]

Especially for your first-rate work at WP:FAR and WP:MED :) --Dustfreeworld (talk) 06:35, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Dustfreeworld most kind of you! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:12, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to see you are still going strong, and remain focussed on what matters: improving articles! Geometry guy 22:39, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Geometry guy what a real pleasure to see you! It's such a different place here now, in so many ways; I often wonder how your absence affected the trajectory of top content work on Wikipedia, and whether the decline we see today would have happened if we had maintained the consistent shepherding evidenced in your work. In other words ... miss you, hope you are well, and it's bittersweet to see you again !!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:15, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And your reply was a pleasure for me also, Sandy! I think it was inevitable that as wikipedia and its articles matured, general editors would lose interest in favour of topic editors, increasing bias and eroding npov. Also, I think there is a broadly left-leaning bias in wikipedia anyway. I could never have fought these trends, and I don't want to spend my free time getting into stressful conflicts anyway. But I like to learn stuff, and there are many substandard articles on things I am interested in, so perhaps I will spend a bit of time on that. In some ways, being insignificant again makes it easier. I am well, and if you want to tell me more about the changes that I have missed, please do. I hope you are well also. Geometry guy 22:33, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again :) Ah, the changes. In no particular order:

1. I frequently say the darn pingie-thingie ended our connections to each other; editors don't come to each other's talk pages and really talk to each other as much as we used to, rather at each other via pings.

   Gone are the days when FAC was a hub.

2. And related to that, what once was considering canvassing, no longer is. Since you can find a sneaky way to ping any editor to anything, the whole idea of canvassing as we knew it (bringing in editors or friends who don't watch a certain area to reinforce your POV or personal preference) is out the window. All that remains is, you can ping anyone you want to anything as long as you do it neutrally.

   And that has meant furthering what was once considered coordinated editing.

3. Attention to notability and encyclopedic content has been replaced by a WMF-mandated desire to represent certain demographics; what started with women in your day has now grown to encompass ... anything that is not a white male. Meeting notability for some groups has slid into nothingness, and there aren't enough editors to keep up with new page patrol and AFD to reduce the non-notable.
4. Gaining adminship these days is much less about being a trusted editor who has demonstrated knowledge of content buildikng in the trenches, and much more about the fact that we need all the warm bodies we can get to deal with the volume of disruption of all kinds.

   Seeking adminship is now almost completely disassociated from writing top content; minimal engagement at the content level is sufficient to gain the tools.

   So increasingly we see editors who have literally never written an article determining the fate of those who do.

5. The way you kept an eye on Every Single Aspect of the GA process was unparalleled. As the FA process has declined, more and more editors pursue the GA assessment level, and the volume is too much for one person to do what you did.
6. DYK hasn't changed one iota. Unfortunately!
7. The Copyright battle was lost years ago; the "Project" does its best to keep up, but barely scrapes the surface, doing probably just enough to forestall a lawsuit by being able to claim due diligence.
8. POV everywhere is almost insurmountable. The noticeboards largely don't function unless a) something is utterly obvious and b) the right demographics are involved that trigger interest, and c) deep digging to recognize the POV isn't required. So you have to pick your battles, and let a lot of outright blatant POV slide, and that extends even to BLPs. The old Siegenthaler days have been forgotten. (Speaking of BLPs, did I mention DYK hasn't changed one iota? Oh, I repeat myself.)
9. Those who can argue a point, for example like Colin, at length-- shouldn't; it's called bludgeoning these days. That's an essay (see my user page).
10. As it has gotten harder and less rewarding to create content, standards of what defines acceptable content have declined. Barely good enough is pretty much the endorsed standard these days. There aren't enough knowledgable editors to staff the noticeboards, and add that to the canvassing issue = if you post to a noticeboard, the most likely responders won't be independent.
11. FA isn't. I never really understood GA, rather relied on you when problems came up, so I can't speak to how or if the standards at GA have evolved. My hunch is they have probably moved down, because generally all content has moved down.

    You missed WP:DCGAR-- delisting of 200+ GAs by one editor, with one of everything (copyio, non-notable, undue, and complete made-up random stuff)

12. WMF pushes one wacky program after another, and WikiAffiliates can pretty much wreak havoc across entire content areas, with there not being enough editors to keep up with the damage.
13. Math articles still have problems with English :) :)
14. Many of the old memes are out the door. "Wikipedia is not therapy"; yes it is, if you're in the right demographic. "FAC is not peer review"; yes it is. "Fringe" no longer has any meaning, as the push for inclusion and growth means anything goes.
15. And everything together has rendered the kerfuffles about certain sockmasters benign in relation to what goes on these days at Wikipedia. In the "be careful what you wish for department", I'd almost wish to go back to the days of the biggest concern being whether a Mattisse copyedit had done more harm than good!

Am I well? Here's a fun story from when a tree tried to kill me, but I survived :) My most adorable husband nursed me through, and in my convalescence, I still beat him at card games even with halfa-brain (I think he let me win :) The music on my user page tells the story of our days; growin' old ain't for sissies, some days are harder than others, but Paul's letter to the Philippians soothes the soul.

So where's the joy in Wikipedia when writing and curating top content is no longer the focus? When an old friend stops by, it's priceless. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:26, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you overestimate the WMF's involvement in our content decisions.

The complaints about math articles have landed at Wikipedia talk:Make technical articles understandable this month, if anyone's interested. They feel approximately the same to me as they did a decade or more ago. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I overestimate the role of the WMF in promoting and funding Wiki-affiliates, with minimal guidance or oversight as to policies and guidelines. As but one example (and not the worst one), why isn't Wiki Ed better funded ? They at least try to help keep student editing policy-based, and intervene to assure communication with professors who have never edited Wikipedia, and even help clean up the damage.

On math, yep, no change over the years; the biggest problem in our math suite is not understanding the math, but the poor prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that Wiki Edu is an affiliate; I think it's just an independent non-profit organization that chooses to do something on wiki. But generally the rule, as it was told to me (and apparently announced a dozen or so years ago), is that affiliates based in wealthy countries need to raise half of their budget themselves. This protects them from being totally dependent on the WMF. I don't know that the WMF is providing fully 50% to Wiki Edu; it looks like Wiki Edu does not choose to disclose any of their grantors in their annual report.

The complaints you make above are "WMF-mandated desire to represent certain demographics" and "WMF pushes one wacky program after another". It might be fair to describe Wiki Edu as a former WMF program (the organization began by spinning off an internal program and the WMF staff who were working on it), but you seem to approve of that one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They've at least turned themselves into something helpful to the unpaid volunteers :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit of a catch-22. If they didn't exist, we would probably see fewer new (student) editors, so there would be less need for them to apologize for the mistakes the new editors make.

But I am (presumably) going to die one of these days, and if we don't get new editors in (students or otherwise), nobody will be here to replace me when that happens. Finding another "SandyGeorgia" requires us to suffer through about 100K first edits, nearly all of which will be suboptimal. Put another way, during the entire decade of Wiki Edu's existence, they have barely brought in enough newbies to find one replacement for you, or to have a chance at finding three of me. I don't know that they did find these replacements, but that's the kind of volume we're looking at. We need the newbies, but they're also kind of a pain while they're still newbies. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:19, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We need to encourage newbies who stick around, but students don't stick around; they're doing it for a grade, and they're gone as soon as they've gotten that. So at least Wiki Ed contains the damage in the short time they're here. (And you will never be replaced; Wikipedia isn't as nice as it was when any of us started, and now it's more about pushing a POV or product or person, and leaders with experience aren't emerging-- they're leaving and dying. Nor will Monnriddengrl ever be replaced, to give an example of how badly we're losing the copyright battle.) And part of the reason there won't be more of "us" is that FAC is no longer leading the way to Wikipedia's best work, with a group that also engaged policy and guideline pages to establish best practices (the SarahVs, Colins, Gguys, Awadewits, etc). Putting up barely good enough work, barely notable, inadequately checked for copyvio, with noticeboards unable to keep up with POV is the new reality, and the "newbies" don't even know the difference. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To a first approximation, nobody sticks around. Counting only registered accounts that have ever made an edit (i.e., did not give up after creating an account), the median number of edits is two, and both of those edits were made on the same day.

A few students do stick around, though some of them create new accounts, so you only find this out by asking them. I've talked to two of them myself (neither of whom wishes to be identified as the poster child for students who keep editing). Wiki Edu Foundation does not track or particularly encourage students to continue editing; their hope is to retain the instructor, rather than the students.

Although I understand some of your concerns about FAC, at least in part, I wonder if the shift in the community is more general. We are no longer trying to create content; many editors are trying to prevent others from creating content that we dislike, and our method for doing this is to pound on The Rules™, instead of common sense, knowing what good writing is, working together, etc. As a simple example, some years back, an editor declared that an article was "too promotional" because it said that the multinational company had offices "in more than 25 countries". I don't think that's promotional, and I don't think that it would have been improved by writing "in 26 countries as of Month Year, with offices presently being organized in two other countries with an expectation that they will open during the next six months", or as "in 26 countries" with Template:Update inline set to trigger in a few months. But even if you thought it was promotional, what happened to WP:SOFIXIT? The whole article was rejected, on fairly flimsy grounds. Realistically, there aren't very many corporations with offices in 25+ countries that we shouldn't have an article on. I think the reaction was driven by the fear of having a Wikipedia article that sounds anything like a corporate website, and an unwillingness to be seen as putting their stamp of approval on anything that could be questioned or might be slightly imperfect. This kind of reaction is not what you get when people know how to write a decent article and see their role as improving content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We are no longer trying to create content; many editors are trying to prevent others from creating content that we dislike, and our method for doing this is to pound on The Rules™, instead of common sense, knowing what good writing is, working together, etc.

You summarised it so well WAID. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#How do we welcome new medical editors? --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, I admire that you persist with Wikipedia, despite all its flaws. I think all the world should be very grateful that this tree did not fall 1 inch more to the right. I lack the competence and time to comment on every change you note, but they do confirm to me that Wikipedia has been subject to the kind of institutional capture by ideologues that we have seen in political elites, from mainstream media to academia. In short, subjective viewpoints from minority groups trump objective facts. I face this problem in my day job, so I don't want to deal with it also in my free time.

I have always been more interested in improving poor articles to an acceptable level than in making the most beautiful encyclopedic articles the world has ever seen. I enjoyed my time doing some of the latter, e.g. via WP:FAT. Perhaps GA standards have gone down a bit since I left, but the project has still been successful in raising the proportion of articles that have had some independent quality control to 1 in 175 (although note that I almost never reviewed a GAN).

The articles that have many editors are either partisan, or mired in disputes, but there are also many articles that are crap because no one cares about them any more. In this climate of fewer impartial editors, I wonder if there might be some value in having a acceptable articles project, with no nomination process at all - just a tag that an independent editor, after making minor improvements, considered that the article was not terrible. Then there would only be a review process where such tags could be challenged.

(PS. Hi Whatamidoing - I noticed that complaints about maths articles have not changed, but this is because there is a constant tension in Wikipedia between being an encyclopedia and not a textbook versus making content as accessible to readers as possible. Maths needs to learn to provide better prose explanations and more links to textbook material. However, you won't convince more editors to do this in their free time if you browbeat them with complaints.) Geometry guy 00:55, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your "acceptable articles" idea is interesting, but brings us back to the other problems. Yes, Wikipedia has become the domain of ideologues, and as the proportion of editors interested in overall quality has declined, there just aren't enough editors to think about another assessment level. More and more it seems that editors are here for the bling, the perceived social capital, or the perceived power, or pursuing/pushing an ideology, and less and less for what we thought we were doing in the last decade-- building a useful reference. I do miss the kinds of conversations we used to have ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:38, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoyed our conversations also and am happy to be having one with you again. I can understand pov-pushing well enough to dislike it, but was never really into barnstars/bling, except only for appreciative comments from someone I respect. How active are Wikiprojects these days? I expect it varies a lot. My vague "acceptable articles" idea would be some sort of universal B/C class, so it is completely redundant if Wikiprojects are working well. Certainly, I would not want to draw editors away from GA and FA, hence there would be no community processes beyond a talk page. Anyway, I almost certainly do not have the energy to pursue such an idea (and it would need a better name!).

I noticed you mentioned Philippians above. Although I am an atheist agnostic, I am very interested in early christian origins and teachings. In the years since I was active on Wikipedia, I have explored such interests, including making my own translation and commentary of the gospel of Mark (other projects have included trying to understand how microprocessors work - success! - and trying to understand the second genetic code of transfer RNA - failure!). What part of Philippians do you particularly like? I confess that I fail miserably at "Do everything without grumbling" ! Geometry guy 21:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProjects in general have also died out, relative to the days when you could be reasonably assured if you asked for help, you'd get it. The niche/ideologue WPs are strong. I suspect the only really active areas is where the special interests can be pushed ... Meetups ... DYK ... in addition to GA.

Mark, microprocessors and RNA ... sure I see the connection <grin> ... glad you are keeping entertained! The "fret not" and rejoice parts keep me going, when friends all around me seem overwhelmed by the state of the world. Even in hard or terrible times, I know how much I have to be thankful for. Maybe it's perspective: when I lived in Argentina, I witnessed a kidnapping, a suicide at my feet, got caught in a shootout, had the house next door blown up. When I lived in Italy, the lack of health care access was frightening. When I worked in Brazil, Colombia and Paraguay, I couldn't cross the street unless my employer sent an escort. And of course, I lived in Venezuela where you can get thrown off a building, beaten to death, tortured into submission, or raped until your private parts are destroyed. I've outlived my mother, and my husband has outlived both his mother and father. My offspring are happy. So all in all, I find that "rejoice" and "fret not" are a good approach to keep me from succumbing in despair to the horrific things happening everywhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:10, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In contrast, my life has been pretty easy. I will be happy to chat more, but I need to sleep soon, and also I discovered yesterday that Richard Dawkins interviewed Steven Weinberg in 2008 and has posted the interview recently. Horrific things happen in this world, but amazing things happen too, such as the James Webb Space Telescope. Geometry guy 00:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My Wikipedia-life's been pretty good so far except for these days where I need to do the updates of my audited content. As a small consolation, I keep stumbling on things like Hells Bells (cave formations) that I wrote but forgot about... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sandy, and Happy Thanksgiving!

I suggest the following tweaks for the Robert B. Silvers article:

• Instead of "Later career years" for the heading, how about just "New York Review"?
• At the end of the first paragraph under the same heading is a sentence that says: In 2012, he added, "I can think of several people who would be marvelous editors."

I'm not sure that we still need this sentence (after his death). I don't think it adds anything to his biography. But if you delete it, please move the ref down to where it is used next.

• American Academy of Arts and Letters appears twice in the article (incl. once in the Lead) and should be linked both times.
• Should we add another sentence to the lead from the article's "Reputation" section?
• Is the first paragraph of the Reputation section too much of a quote farm? I think the Joan Didion quote could be sacrificed without losing much.
• Sherrilyn Ifill should be added to the list of Robert B. Silvers Lecturers at the end of the Legacy section (see this).

Ssilvers (talk) 23:48, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ssilvers I'll look at these when I get a free moment (unless someone else does first); have to focus on finishing up that table for AN. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No rush! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:31, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		The Medicine Barnstar
		For your work in Clinomorphism. SVcode(Talk) 22:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, SVcode; that was very kind of you! (That article was a mess, no?). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:02, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is still a mess but it's much better thanks to you! SVcode(Talk) 00:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That thing needs to go to Wiktionary, but I have no idea how to make that happen or how to tag the article so someone will make it happen. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to make it happen: here. But Wiktionary sometimes deletes new entries for reasons I find obscure.—S Marshall T/C 09:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, S Marshall ... I shall submit it to AFD then once i have time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SandyGeorgia :) I'm looking to interview people here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 12:43, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, people's rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension. Happy Holidays to you and yours. You mention tears above. Your corner of WikiWorld supports so many that cherish you. Enjoy your tea. ―Buster7 ☎

I have added content from Laino 2006 for the William Utermohlen article. I'm here on your talk page to ask if you believe that the source has been fully used and the article is now comprehensive, or if there are still some things that I have missed, and could add to the article. Thanks, Realmaxxver (talk) 16:12, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Realmaxxver I will look as soon as I'm able, but I have had some real life tragedies and am working on two funerals in the near term. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea that happened. I understand. Realmaxxver (talk) 15:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	I haven't told you how much I appreciate your work on the Parkinson's article. Even as a someone with PD I'm learning from it! Doug Weller talk 17:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Doug Weller, I appreciate that; sorry things IRL have been quite rough for me lately and I'm finding myself constantly exasperated and out of patience. Be well, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t worry about it. Believe me, I empathise with that. But thanks for telling me. Doug Weller talk 18:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS, Doug Weller one interesting side note about the synucleinopathies is how market/advocacy driven everything in that area is. Which part of the brain the Lewy bodies attack first determines whether one ends up with what is called dementia with Lewy bodies, Parkinson's disease dementia, or Parkinson's disease, but the different invested parties fight each other rather than working together, and end up making less progress as a result, compared to, for example, Alzheimer's. The PD people won't give up their Michael Fox-driven nomenclature, and the LBD people won't give up their territory, so we end up with a confusing nomenclature and different advocacy orgs not working together on one spectrum all driven by Lewy bodies. If you give dementia with Lewy bodies a solid read, you'll end up learning as much about Parkinson's disease and its dementia as you can learn at the PD article. I am constantly frustrated by how advocacy-driven the issues are in the area of synucleinopathies, which is probably a big part of my frustration about the focus on one image, when the entire article is a wreck. To write these articles, one has to have a good understanding of which parties are leaning which direction with their advocacy, so actually, History is the best starting place! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I really need to get my head around that. I know there’s DNA research being done and I’ve donated my saliva and taken part in some movement research. Logitech even gave ma a mouse. I have no idea where my consultant stands on all of this, just that he’s well respected and a really lovely person. I don’t want to pry but I am impressed by your knowledge. As I said, I want to help Erica, who did the actual drawing. The confusion isn’t surprising fome people who have no experience with Wikipedia being advised by someone who hasn’t much experience with uploading images! Doug Weller talk 19:10, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am so terrified of images, but I suspect I've warn out my welcome with Colin :)

So, imagine if all the PD and all the LBD people joined forces and worked together, instead of fighting each other for market niche ... it really all comes down to which part of the body the little buggers attack first, and if all of the invested parties were on the same page, the resources would go so much farther !! But the researchers have their niches, ditto for the advocacy groups ... while all the Alzheimer's people are behind one big org. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!
	Have a great Christmas, and may 2024 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls, vandals or visits from Krampus! Cheers SchroCat (talk) 09:35, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SandyGeorgia: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:22, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		Season's Greetings
		Wishing everybody a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! The Nativity scene on the Pulpit in the Pisa Baptistery by Nicola Pisano is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 02:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

❄️ Happy holidays! ❄️

Hi Sandy! I'd like to wish you a splendid solstice season as we wrap up the year. Here is an artwork, made individually for you, to celebrate. Thanks as always for the invaluable work you do at FAC. Take care, and thanks for all you do to make Wikipedia better!

Cheers,
{{u|Sdkb}} ^talk

Solstice Celebration for SandyGeorgia, 2023, DALL·E 3.

(View full series)

Note: The vibes are winter solsticey. If you're in the southern hemisphere, oops, apologies.

{{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:00, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you've gotten most of the standard templates already, so I'll write my holiday wishes out by hand. Thanks for all you do on Wikipedia. Have a merry Christmas and a happy New Year. Spicy (talk) 17:36, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May the bells of Christmas ring for freedom!^[1]

Carol of the Bells (Instrumental)

Instrumental arrangement of "Carol of the Bells"

---

Problems playing this file? See media help.

May peace be upon us.

And have a happy and prosperous New Year. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:42, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! Shearonink (talk) wishes you & yours the very best of the season!

Whether you celebrate Christmas, Diwali, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa,
Festivus (for the rest of us!) or even the Saturnalia,
here's hoping your holiday time is wonderful and
- especially -
that the New Year will be an improvement on the old.
CHEERS!

Share these holiday wishes by adding {{subst:User:Shearonink/Holiday}} to your friends' talk pages.

(Sent: 02:42, 25 December 2023 (UTC)) Shearonink (talk) 02:42, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~ ~ ~ Merry Christmas! ~ ~ ~

Hello SandyGeorgia: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 16:46, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	Tricolor Barnstar
	If I'm not mistaken you've received this barnstar in the past, but I guess one can't get too many of them, especially when hard work deserves to be recognized. I send you my utmost respect and very best wishes. NoonIcarus (talk) 19:48, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	Felices fiestas
	Because old habits die hard. I hope you can share these days with your loved ones and that they are full of joy. Happy holidays! NoonIcarus (talk) 19:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		Happy New Year!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy New Year, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free and may Janus light your way. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:45, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Wishing you the best for 2024, on Wikipedia and (more importantly) off. Back to URFA we go... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:55, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

SandyGeorgia,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
 — Amakuru (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

 — Amakuru (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: Sandy, your holiday has been too long. When are you coming back? --Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to check in to make sure you were still doing alright, as well. Hog Farm _Talk 23:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+1 ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:35, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+1 to the above, hope all is well. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, if you return we will elect you coordinator of ITN... tempting, I know ;) Aza24 (talk) 07:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+1 --Dustfreeworld (talk) 06:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please be safe and sound, in good health, and in all things blessed. Godspeed. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 09:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Hope you are well. You have a God-given baloney detector that won't quit. Without you Minneapolis might still be "second only to New York City in live theater per capita" and have the "fourth-highest percent of LGBTQ" in the US. Miss you. Much obliged, SusanLesch (talk) 21:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+2, just in case if a +1 is not enough. Panini! • 🥪 22:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Been missing you SG. I had a dream last night that you made some minor edit somewhere, and I was relieved to know you're alive and well, even if still mostly detached from this project. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miss you. MUCH. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 06:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+1 Stay safe. My best wishes, --NoonIcarus (talk) 03:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, I'm so sorry you suffered such a traumatic event. Losing one person is tough but two around same time is crazy difficult. I know the feeling and I know dealing with the grief takes time. I hope being with your children and taking this break has allowed you to somewhat cope and process. Just know that there are those here in this community that love and care about you. We admire your strength to make it through this difficult time and we appreciate what you mean to this community. Your impact is felt. I sing for strength and wholeness over you on this journey. --ARoseWolf 15:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, I just saw your note at ANI about your losses and imminent hand surgery; my sympathy on all counts. Get better soon, both emotionally and physically. And while I was here I noticed the thread farther up the page: yes, I did develop the facstats tool in response to people asking for hard numbers and evidence instead of intuition and anecdote. I'm glad it's been useful! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw on the ANI about your recent losses as well, so I'm sharing my condolences and hoping for your speedy recovery. We had a lot to finish and though we've had our differences, you've made me a better Wikipedia user. WMrapids (talk) 16:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh your post surprised me .. I thought you would have sent it by email... anyway, yep, though I don’t know how she made you a better user, I do believe she has made me a better Wikipedian. So, thanks Sandy :-) --Dustfreeworld (talk) 16:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A bowl of soup for you! I have given you a barnstar to thank you for all you have done already. I don’t know what else to give … I hope you like this. :-) I hope all is well with you and yours. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 10:15, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Through my short time editing Wikipedia I have found you an excellent administrator who has the potential to fairly resolve conflicts with speed and proficiency, even when there is a large power disparity in such a conflict. — Scientelenisa (talk) 13:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, User:SandyGeorgia! I was wondering if you have the time to leave a comment on the talk page for the Digital media use and mental health article in the FAR notice section. You raised issues with the content of the article at the FAR notice discussion last November and December that I've attempted to address, but I was hoping if you could provide some additional comments to what I've tried to do to improve the article. I didn't know that you don't get along with pings, so I guess it's a good thing that I decided to leave a talk page message. :) -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was working on one of my pages that you had helped me with and was just wondering about you. So, I looked to see if you had checked in lately. I saw you had! You've been missed!

You've been through so much lately. I hope that if you find yourself back here that you find the return to interacting with the typical range of Wikipedian behavior- the good, the bad, the ugly- and let's not forget the grateful. If you are here more regularly, I hope it remains something meaningful and challenging that supports your world in terms of your latest RL transitions. I also hope that you will feel the meaningful difference you make to the fellow editors that have worked with you and to the readers who continue to get the best of your heart and intellect because you are here. Wtfiv (talk) 21:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+1, Welcome back! --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Diff/1217122704 here but I'm still not going to get involved. Especially now that there are calls to put "holocaust denier" in the lead of a BLP.. that's just not worth the stress I'd endure dealing with it. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:44, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I typed a long response and then deleted it; I am still reeling from loss of soul-sisters, and still don't feel ready to comment here. (With apologies to all whose talk posts and well wishes I haven't yet responded to since December losses.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean to drag you down. I just don't have the energy to deal with that level of POV-ness. My own life is busy/hectic/stressed/depressing-at-times enough that I just don't need the stress. Do not want to drag you further down - I know you're dealing with much of the same. (hugs) Ealdgyth (talk) 15:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ealdgyth you didn't drag me down at all ... I was threatening to take another road trip to see you, except I just spent two weeks on the road and am struggling to catch up on my other volunteer gigs, and I was reminiscing about how it feels to have lost friends in real life relative to the loss of our group of strong women on Wikipedia. It was good to hear from a soul sister who sees how crazy it has gotten in here, and I 'spose those of our friends who left long ago had good sense. Your feedback was validating as I miss my lost friends. I just feel badly that I don't have words for everyone who has reached out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you wanted to road trip this weekend, we'd be out on the road to the inlaws to see the eclipse. That is, if we can get the hubby home in time.. it's been wild. Ealdgyth (talk) 01:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 20, 2024, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SandyGeorgia. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Not sure if you got my email there. Been on holiday with the family for the last week, and won't be back editing for another couple of days. Should be able to respond at Rowling's article towards the end of the week. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whew, that's a relief. I have not had time to check my email. After two weeks of travel, catching up on what little I could from iPad in the car ('til I lost battery), then serious few days of work once back at home and then to catch up on my other volunteer jobs before surgery tomorrow ... I am still not back in the saddle, still not sure I really want to be back in here, but relieved to know that you are well! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandy. I've sent the full text of Whited to you. It seemed better to download the entire book instead of separate chapters. I've been distracted and haven't had much time to read closely except for a cursory skim. It's interesting but I'm not seeing a nicely written timeline of her Twitter/X feed - which isn't a surprise from a scholarly work.

Re the Wikipedia Library. Access seems to be dependent of activity. Try the following:

1. Go to the Wikipedia Library portal
2. Sign in to access the "My collections" page
3. Scroll through the "My collections" page to find Project Muse
   1. If it's not there, then you need to submit an application. I don't see the application button so can't help there
4. Click "Access collection" >> brings you to ProjectMuse search page

That's all. In the meantime, good luck with hand surgery recovery and don't worry about things here. Take care. Victoria (tk) 23:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Victoriaearle ... Thanks times two (got in to TWL and got the email). The hand is doing great, the doc says it's highly unlikely to be melanoma, healing well ... now if I could just figure out how to wash my hair for the next ten days 'til stitches come out! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:21, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all good news. I see that Whited is getting some discussion over at JKR, so that's good too. Victoria (tk) 13:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. But I cannot take the lead this time (don't have the energy and unsure I want to be back in here yet), and while some are filling the talk page with complaints, no one there is actually doing the work necessary to rewrite, while several of those opining don't demonstrate research, sourcing or prose skills at the FA level, so unless something gives, we may be headed back to FAR. Thanks again for the source and well wishes. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think a bit premature to expect FAR. The Wikipedia Library is a good resource, but I hadn't looked there because I've not been very active. While I have access I'd like to do a search on Ebscohost too and see what pops there. In the meantime I'll post these access instructions to the Rowling talk page so others can use those sources instead of searching google - which is always slanted towards a person's interests. Victoria (tk) 14:43, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Victoriaearle I found a bit of sloppy scholarship in Whited. Looking for the background on her status as a billionaire, Whited cites this marginal article, which in turn cites this piece-- neither impressive in their scholarship (or writing). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, perhaps I'm accustomed to viewing scholarship through a WP:MEDRS lens, but the Rebecca Sutherland Borah chapter does not impress me. Relative to half a billion copies of books in print,

• "Because Harry Potter fandom is too large for exhaustive analysis, in this study I focused primarily on fans with online connections, using an online survey and observing and interacting with fans through websites, primarily social media platforms." (Biased sample)
• "Almost all the 1,217 people who responded (99 percent) were college age and older, with 64.7 percent in the millennial category (ages 29–43)." (sample size)
• "My survey was posted for a two-month period starting in mid-November 2019, so it was partially contemporaneous with the fallout." (Representative?)

is a pretty weak/biased sample. Our text may need to indicate that Borah's work is based on a limited subset of the entire fandom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, yesterday I started working my way through the "Introduction". I noticed that Whited's numbers for HP book sales differed from ours (but I didn't dig into the footnotes). I also noted the discrepency re wealth. But, the "Introduction" does give a good timeline of the transgender tweets from 2019 to 2022 or 2023 that I think we can use. I've started taking notes in User:Victoriaearle/Rowling but didn't get very far. I also think we can use the material regarding the huge fan base, possibly the fan fiction aspect (which seemingly has caused lots of tension in terms of intellectual property/copyright), which I posted about here on the talk page. But, yeah, I noted the parameters for the study and had to shake my head. Literary scholars do weird studies, is all I can say. I thought that in grad school and it still seems to be a thing. But the background material in that chapter I think is usable. I have to be out today (migraine flare, so limited screen time) but will try to get back to taking notes tonight. I hope we can get enough from that source for some kind of a rewrite of the transgender section and then the lead. Also, there's updated info on her other projects I believe we can use. Victoria (tk) 14:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree much of it is quite usable, but we have to be aware of problems like those I raise. I won't be able to look in any great detail until I've finished evidence for the arb case (and with slow typing due to stitches), and after that, I may just finally semi-retire, as I am so tired of dealing with POV and vandalism everywhere one turns. If I look at my watchlist from the months I took off, there are scores of articles I need to fix, and I just don't have the energy for it anymore; losing two close friends changed my whole world. So, I can't be counted on to work up the draft on Rowling, and I remain concerned that the main authors aren't stepping in either. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, not all parts of the wiki have been overrun with POV and vandalism; most volcanoes are going along merrily. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) (please point me to the proper discussion if this is the wrong place but I'm not seeing any discussion on this on the Rowling talk page) I wouldn't even use that Borah study at all. At least from my understanding of college stats classes and How to Lie with Statistics, that is really dreadfully bad sampling practices to draw a broad conclusion with, and "this is what a few people who responded to an internet survey think" isn't really useful for even a narrow conclusion for the question at hand. Hog Farm _Talk 15:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF, I haven't added it there yet ... my typing is limited and I have to focus on arb evidence and I have no sense (yet) that any serious work is underway at Rowling, although I trust that Victoria will sort which, if any, pieces of the Whited work are usable ... I'd agree on avoiding any conclusions based on very narrow survey of a relatively small sample, which could misrepresent views of broader population. (Jo-Jo, I envy editors who work in areas where articles aren't bombarded by inferior edits-- I have never been so lucky!!!) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS, we also have translations to 84 languages, while Whited has 80 ... so we are more current even though Whited is recent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I noticed that too, so I just ignored all those numbers. Victoria (tk) 15:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandy, glad to see you're back. Just wanted to let you know that prostate cancer is currently at FAC (here), thanks in no small part to your efforts. It has received plenty of feedback there, so there's no immediate need for you to give more of your limited time. Of course, if you have feedback big or small, positive or negative, you're welcome to share it. Once this FAC is through, I'll plan to launch another this spring/summer. Probably dracunculiasis if I can wrap up my to-do list. Breast cancer at some point after, to balance out prostate cancer. Not trying to add to your to-do list, but rather wanted to thank you for pushing me in this direction, and for your ever-useful feedback on articles. Cheers. Ajpolino (talk) 16:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, we can thank the awesome Hog Farm for doing a layperson review on a medical article :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's true, we don't deserve him :) Ajpolino (talk) 19:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That particular problem was the beginning of my disappointment with FAC :) Since I've reviewed hundreds of articles on topics of little interest to me, I still can't understand why we can't buy a medical review, at least just for a jargon check, and am so grateful for Hog Farm. I vowed to stay away from FAC forever more, but then here you are, and I can't refuse you either !!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]