User talk:SandyGeorgia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

I prefer to keep conversations together and usually respond on my talk page, so watch the page for my reply.
To leave me a message, click here.

15 minutes of non-fame (Paid Editing)[edit]

... of non-fame. "Controlling the narrative: Six editors account for the overwhelming majority of edits to Wikipedia articles covering current events in Venezuela" on reddit.

Posted to AN for more eyes: [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

So you saw a thread on Reddit, claiming I am a paid government shill. My 15 minutes of non-fame I guess. Please do ask me anything you want to know; I am happy to chat with anyone and personally deny the charges, that come from someone who may not understand how to use or interpret the Wikipedia tools they found, and help you understand how and why Mr. Reddit got it wrong.

And yes, there typically are about half a dozen top editors working on just about everything I edit here, whether medical, Venezuela, or as part of the articles I follow as a result of having served as a delegate for many years for Wikipedia's featured article process. There are also typically dozens to hundreds of others, doing a bit of this and that, but the quality articles on Wikipedia are usually shepherded by very few editors, doing all the work. There aren't enough editors in any area, and there are almost always just a few editors holding down the fort.

Although I have never showcased my Featured article work, or my barnstars (as you see on the userpages of many Wikipedians), now that I wear a false tag that has been spread thoughout the internet, I have had to put together some information about who I really am. Some information about my edits:

  • The paid editing thing needs to be dealt with right away; that dog won't hunt anywhere, because I've been around too long and know too many editors, and have too much of a consistent editing pattern (where I end up with a high edit count on every article I touch, because of how I edit) for anyone of substance to believe it. Besides that. It is false. (And creepy, cruddy and disgusting.)
  • I am fluent in Spanish (for listening, reading and speaking, but not for writing), but a native English speaker. Some of the Venezuela editors sometimes need help with grammar cleanup, so that also adds to my editcount. I strongly deny that any of the Venzuelan editors are paid; that stuff is too easy to recognize. I busted a Venezuelan paid editor once, rather spectacularly, at ANI. (ANI archive)

    That doesn't mean I am naive to the topic of paid editing in Venezuelan articles. When Hugo Chavez was alive, and the Venezuela Information Office was a thing, it was a widely and well known fact that he controlled the entire suite of Venezuela articles, and attempts to recruit Wikipedia editors happened. I know. Personally. It's why I stopped editing the topic for many years, only coming back when I heard of the January 2019 crisis. No one was complaining when a blatant and pronounced pro-Chavez bias dominated the suite because Chavez was media savvy and put his best people on the job. I am completely unaware of any such effort during the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis, and considering the approaches I used to get, I think if there were a current effort to control the content on Wikipedia, I would have been approached. My observation is that we are dealing with a small group of editors, like me, who either by birth or other life circumstances, are familiar with Venezuela.

  • From being the Featured article candidate delegate and heavily involved at Featured article reviews, if you look at any article I edit, you will find I have gazillions of cleanup edits, even in the cases where I add little content. I clean up citations. I clean up MOS stuff. I do gobs of little edits. It's because I am used to working on articles written at the featured article level, and I hate working on crap articles, so I clean them up. People with an edit counting obsession are going to come to false conclusions about my edits quickly if they use the editcount tools.
  • Here's an example: Samuel Johnson. I can't remember for how many years I've watched that article and maintained the small things. I am the top editor in edit count by a long distance, even though I have only 6% of authorship.[2] Every article I touch is similar, because I do so much repetitive cleanup work.
  • A factor in the Venezuelan presidential crisis suite of articles is that we have had to constantly split articles (as the grow too large) into smaller sub-articles. When you split or merge an article by copy-pasting text, you end up with 100% credit for the authorship, even if you wrote none of it. Best example of that is an article I hardly edit, Censorship and media control during the Venezuelan presidential crisis. I show as having 73% of the content in nine edits;[3] that's because I copied the text from the main article to there when we split it, so it looks like "my" article, even though I wrote almost none of it. The tools don't give the information that Mr. Reddit thinks they do.
  • Have I mentioned that Mr. Reddit has an edit counting problem while having no knowledge of the tool he is using? Yes, I edit like a banshee, and yes, in spite of my infamous number of typos, I can generate that much content without being paid for it. I should be paid in typos. I wonder if Mr. Reddit even knows how to look at actual edits.
  • I am proud that together with other Venezuelan editors, we have kept 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis readable during the three grueling months it has been on the mainpage. (I am not a mainpage follower, but I am pretty sure that being subjected to an onslaught of edits from mainpage exposure for three months is highly unusual.) After my brush with internet Reddit fame, I doubt I will stay involved there. May be time to write another neuropsych article, since I gained so much experience dealing with psychopathologies while the article was mainpaged.
  • I am proud of the work I headed up here: {{FCDW}}
  • This post from old friend Tim, a medical editor, always tickles my funny bone:
Who is Sandy Georgia? - "Sandy is a complicated person in real life. She passes her time in simple surroundings, trying to deflect the worship of those who know her and use her gifts to help others. She has been hunted as a fugitive, cursed as a tomb-robber, and is renowned as a lover and duelist. She is a worshiped as a God in Honduras, but is an outlaw in Peru. No living man knows her real name, as she only whispers it into the ears of those she is about to kill. All love her and hate her, she is SandyGeorgia." -- Tim Vickers 17:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC) [4] [5]
  • That's about all I can think of to share publicly about myself. Except one last thing. You couldn't pay me to be a PR shill for the Trump administration. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:30, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Keep up the good work. Wow - 845 views a day for Bespoke! Johnbod (talk) 03:38, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Wow, I had no idea ... can't believe people read a topic like that! Cool beans, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:52, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Thought I should give you this[edit]

Arepa de pabellon.jpg An arepa for you!
I don't think I personally have ever given you a barnstar, and it took quite some time until we met in the same articles that we were editing. I realized that this may be the perfect way to show how grateful I am for all of your effort, and I'm sure I also speak on behalf of other paisanos. I hope you enjoy it :) Jamez42 (talk) 22:39, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42:, I have been remiss in thanking you. I was caught a bit speechless at the time you delivered it, and this kindness was so meaningful, coming in the midst of the Reddit dreadfulness. An arepa always warms the soul and spirit, and I so appreciate this delicacy! Saludos, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Don't sweat it! I imagined :) I'm really glad I sent it at a good moment. Pabellón arepas one of my personal favorites. Take care!! --Jamez42 (talk) 15:04, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Videos again[edit]

FYI, Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Video Namespace.

James is still pushing these robot-narrated slide-shows on medical articles and now wants a namespace to host these article-forks. -- Colin°Talk 13:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@Colin:, my apologies for the delay. I have had a crazy busy few weeks, and just now looked at this. Reading that stuff gives me a headache; I just don't understand why we must expend any effort on it. It seems to have taken care of itself; did I miss something? The community seems to see all the problems you see. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
The namespace suggestion was obviously premature and snowball opposed. But James is still determined to create hundreds of these appalling robot slideshows. I fear editors will still have them imposed on their articles and find WP:MED acolytes edit warring to force their retention like before. Currently MEDMOS is being abused to permit POV pushing at Methylphenidate, and personal attacks by WP:MED regulars go unnoticed. -- Colin°Talk 19:59, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
@Colin:, in other words, business as usual. That's why I signed off there. I returned to Wikipedia to edit Venezuela topics, find I need to make an update to TS, find dear Casliber digging in to help at dementia with Lewy bodies (the page that finally convinced me the MED project was full-on dysfunctional), so I will have to respond to his kindness, and other than that-- really hope to vanish again once my interest in editing Venezuela topics subsides. The MED project is a trainwreck; I finally really got it when I tried to write the dementia article and saw how long-time FA collaborators were chased away. The days of ... whatever they were ... are gone, I miss them, but I have little interest in engaging the crowd or the tactics that dominate WT:MED any more. Ping me any time, but I'm not touching methylphenidate because I've seen what is driving editing on those articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:29, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
I might dive into more editing after the sobering reality of our federal election on the weekend....sigh...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:40, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Lovely mess at:,_dependence_and_withdrawal

But for perspective, view this sentence just added at methylphenidate (worthy of an entire copyediting lesson from Tony1):

  • Immediate release form of methylphenidate is added as an adjunct to the daily regimen along with longer-acting form in order to achieve full-day efficacy coverage for symptom control nowadays.

and take into consideration the level of debate. If you try to write a medical article on Wikipedia, this is what you encounter "nowadays". We no longer value writing; perhaps that's why we prefer videos and formulaic approaches to article structure. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Eeeuuuw, that green sentence. I've already said negative things about the frightful bot voice at Facebook's Wikipedia Weekly page, where James was promoting the vids with an example. Tony (talk) 12:57, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure that good writing isn't valued so much as that relatively few editors have the skill to write well, despite Tony's best efforts. Eric Corbett 16:01, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • How wonderful to "see" you Eric Corbett! I overgeneralized" good writing of entire articles, and collaboration, is no longer a goal of medical articles. The goals of late are to write oversimplified leads that can be translated to other language Wikipedias and used to generate videos, and that are basically just regurgitating what NIH or NHS has. This is done even when the rest of the articles are a dangerous load of crap. The medicine project has taken on formulaic approaches, with goals that have no relation to writing good, comprehensive, top quality articles. The halls of WT:MED were once filled with medical scholars. Now we are driven by agenda-pushing at psychostimulant articles; just watch what our resident FA-writing psychiatrist will have to answer to in there :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I can't speak to the medicine project as I usually avoided it, with very few exceptions, mainly because it seemed potentially dangerous to me. Mistaking the facts in an article about a 17th-century uprising in rural England isn't likely to harm anyone, but psychoactive drugs ... plus the facts aren't always as clear-cut as even doctors may believe. I suffered very badly from the effects of a drug called omeprazole, nearly killed me, but the majority of doctors I've spoken to since about what happened are very sceptical, and are completely unaware of the very serious effects it can have on your pancreas. It's not their fault of course, they don't always have the time to keep up with the latest research, and so I'd far rather rely on regulatory authorities and even the pharmaceutical companies themselves for information about any drug.
  • And returning to the good writing theme, I seem to remember a time when Wikipedia had rafts of good writers with whom it was a pleasure to collaborate: Karanacs and Moni3 spring immediately to mind but there were many others as well. Perhaps the question is why does Wikipedia find it so difficult to retain good writers, and why doesn't it seem to care that it can't? Eric Corbett 16:33, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I think both are true, speaking relative to, say, a decade ago. And I think the two are related: the less the project values good writing the harder it is for those few standing on that barricade, and the sooner they either burn out or flame out. And the worst part is… We now have the widest coverage of any encyclopedia. A lot of the articles have been expanded to some reasonable size. Which makes quality of information and quality of presentation ever more critical. Both aspects require good, "even brilliant", writers. --Xover (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @Xover:, I was unaware that change to WIAFA had been made :( :( How discouraging that the likes of Colin, Tony1, Eric Corbett and I wasted so many years building standards that are ... just gone now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:37, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • To be fair, the discussion was reasonable enough and the change had support from several voices that carry a lot of weight on that issue, but, still… To me this is symptomatic. The current phrasing is something that belongs in the MoS, written as a general guideline for the wide variety of article. At FAC, if FAs are to showcase the very best of the project, the standards should be higher, and should always strive for that unattainable ideal, including, even, "brilliant prose". It's the difference between FA being a hard-won achievement that cost blood and heartache, and FAC as a slightly run-down factory producing new blurbs to fill up the TFA slots (probably to improve the engagement metric or somesuch). That factory may be a necessary evil, but nobody wants to live next to it, much less work there. My FAC scars from back in the day, on the other hand, are something I'd brag about! --Xover (talk) 18:12, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, you took on such a light topic :) :) :) I don't recall encountering Anne Delong ever, but yes, important voices weighed in there. Nonetheless, "brilliant prose" was the last stand against the formulaic, dull, plodding, cookie-cutter FAs that dominate FAC these days! Here I am, dragging myself through updates to Tourette syndrome, which I was proud of when it had Tony1 prose, but now ... why do I bother? There is no pride in it anymore ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree. FACs these days tend to be worthy enough efforts, but somehow soulless. Maybe the goal of "brilliant" was just too high a bar. Eric Corbett 18:40, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Freely avaliable[edit]

Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:40, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Doc James; I hadn't checked yet. I may not get to it today, but I will get to it this week. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:42, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png The Barnstar of Diligence
Thank your for your painstaking efforts to cover the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis with reliable sources. Your work is appreciated by many readers who seek accurate information on this significant political event. — Newslinger talk 03:11, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Dear Newslinger, I am "pleased to meet you" and honored to receive this barnstar! A fan, I have been watching your diligent work on reliable sources for some time now, and finding this from you during a real low time for me (Mr. Reddit) was such a pleasant surprise that I was rendered uncharacteristically speechless! I will treasure this barnstar, and want to also let you how much I appreciate your work that creates the backbone of all we do (reliable sources) on Wikipedia. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:33, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Preventing automatic talk page archiving[edit]

Hi SandyGeorgia, a couple of weeks ago, you asked, "Could someone please explain why the bot keeps archiving this RFC, and how to make that stop?" I don't think anyone answered your question, so I'll do my best to explain.

The source of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard has a {{User:MiszaBot/config}} template near the top that defines the automated talk page archiving settings. In the template, algo is set to old(5d), which means that any discussions (including RfCs) on the noticeboard are eligible to be archived after 5 days of no new comments.

If you don't want the discussion to be automatically archived before it's formally closed, the easiest solution is to insert a {{subst:Do not archive until}} tag (or the {{subst:DNAU}} shortcut) somewhere in the discussion. For RfCs, it's best to place the DNAU tag immediately after the signature of the RfC statement to prevent the tag from being transcluded into the discussion lists.

I hope this helps! — Newslinger talk 06:09, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

It should be possible, not that I understand these things, to lengthen the period - 5 days is pretty short. Probably there was no discussion when it was set up. Johnbod (talk) 13:33, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Johnbod, I think higher-traffic noticeboards tend to have shorter archive periods. For example, WP:ANI is set to 72 hours and WP:AN is set to 6 days. The best place to discuss changing the value would be WT:RSN. — Newslinger talk 17:36, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks so much @Johnbod and Newslinger:. I believe I eventually figured that out, as I was trying to sort that RFC started by ZiaLater. Thanks for the help, and thanks for responding! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:34, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Medalla tricolor[edit]

BoNM - Venezuela Hires.png Medalla tricolor
Just saw the attack on your work in Reddit and I felt the need to give you an online barnstar. Those people don't know the amount of volunteer time you've put in those articles, just keep up the good work Sandy! Oscar_. (talk) 01:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you so much, Oscar_. ! After so many years on Wikipedia, and so many unpleasant experiences, it was surprising to find that a false accusation of paid editing could be such a demotivating factor, but that it has been. There is so much clean up work to be done on all of the Venezuelan articles, and I dug in to help because the articles were on the main page. And got dinged for doing that. Perhaps my interest in editing Venezuelan topics will come back ... it is most kind of you to think of me! Saludos, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Responses to the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis[edit]


Please check the article in the subjest (Jamaica and St Lucia). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lavelletta (talkcontribs) 10:51, May 25, 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Lavalletta I am traveling and barely keeping up with Wikipedia. Independently, I don't believe Wikipedia should be tracking responses by country in articles, so I do my best to avoid those sections, which I consider unencyclopedic, UNDUE (they are often a compilation of primary sources). Sorry I can't help, but the grouping of country responses is not my cup of tea, and I had my druthers, we'd delete the whole mess. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Can o Worms for you to open...(or the BBC isn't always neutral or accurate)[edit]

Like I've complained to my Twitter friend at BBC Global Pod and to PBS News Hour email and Twitter; "If you aren't covering oil politics: US high cost oil production and the cheaply extracted Orinico Basin reserves 1100 miles to Houston refineries; you aren't covering the Venezuelan political crisis." John Bolton already tipped his hand and the price of gas can topple an American President. Ask Carter.

Here the NYT goes in depth about the value of the oil field to US companies, but do you own reading about latest developments. Check out how China and Russia have moved to control the Orinco oil as production has slumped from Venezuela's economic crisis. Understanding oil (and increasingly rare earth) extraction politics can give you a major understanding in why the various large players choose to interfere in smaller countries' elections and economies and you can easily see why some wars are being fought. (talk) 12:59, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Sectorial VP of Venezuela[edit]


I think we should have one article and add lists for all offices of SVP.--Panam2014 (talk) 02:14, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Peer review request[edit]

Hi Sandy, I know you've gone off the Venezuela topic a bit, but I'd really like to ask if you'd look at Un célebre especialista sacando muelas en el gran Hotel Europa - the first Venezuelan film. I already asked for a peer review looking particularly at the style because I know that's where it's lacking; the review was quite positive, and some edits were made, but the FAC still picked up on, yes, style. I know you have substantial FAC experience so even a few pointers would be really appreciated; I really want to learn how to make quality articles for everything I contribute to, and with my interest in Venezuelan film, making this article the best it can is something I'd like to achieve. Thanks for consideration, Kingsif (talk) 14:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:CEN is now open![edit]

To all interested parties: Now that it has a proper shortcut, the current events noticeboard has now officially opened for discussion!

WP:CEN came about as an idea I explored through a request for comment that closed last March. Recen research has re-opened the debate on Wikipedia's role in a changing faster-paced internet. Questions of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:Recentism are still floating around. That being said, there are still plenty of articles to write and hopefully this noticeboard can positively contribute to that critical process.

Thank you for your participation in the RFC, and I hope to see you at WP:CEN soon! –MJLTalk 17:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)