User talk:SandyGeorgia

Poor Man's Talk Back

Followup for @Neutralhomer: ... this discussion shows what happens when one tries to discuss anything with this editor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to you post here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:26, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutralhomer, your offer to meatpuppet for Gerda in the Infobox wars is yet another indication that the arb case is either not understood or not taken seriously-- the number of editors colluding on the infobox situation was the basis of the problem to begin with, that led to the arbcase. (That personal attacks of that nature are becoming the norm, not dealt with anywhere, is no longer surprising.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:43, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has been taken to ArbCom for clarification and personally, I can't see how a user adding an infobox hurts anyone. It seems silly to prevent someone from adding something constructive (and infoboxes are constructive) to any Wikipedia page. It seems even sillier to prevent anyone from adding infoboxes for that editor. Regardless of what ArbCom says, it seems like this is a way to prevent an established and well-respected editor from editing.

I will await ArbCom's ruling on this one and proceed according to that. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, still, you don't seem to be aware of or acknowledge the disruption caused to Wikipedia by editors colluding on technical issues. "I can't see how a user adding an infobox hurts anyone" indicates you may not be familiar with the case, or the issue that more editing by proxy is not what those involved in that case need. What they need is to curtail their attacks on those who disagree with them on the usefulness of infoboxes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:59, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adding an infobox to a page is an "attack"?! What?! Explain to me how you came up with that theory. Are we now restricting people we disagree with? I don't agree with you, let's put some restrictions on you and vice versa? It's an infobox...come on! - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The attack was by Montanabw on someone pointing out an infobox issue: this is characteristic of what has gone on throughout that case. Please focus: I don't really have time to bring you up to speed on an old case. I do have time to point out to you that suggesting that I will wade into that mess is not sound ... one would think admins would deal with the situation without more need for more editors to be drawn into the imbroglio and factions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so you won't give me the short version of this "case", but you will tell me that I shouldn't take up this fight. That's the kind of answer that makes me want to. An infobox is not an attack, it is not a faction and it is not anything one should be restricted over. You have obviously forgotten why you are here, you are here to edit an encyclopedia, not put restrictions on people you clearly disagree with. You are not the Wikipedia Police Department, you are an editor. If you think you are anything more than that, please consult the "log out" link above. None of us should discourage an editor from expanding an article, as you are, over something one doesn't have the time to explain. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:43, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind taking the time to walk you through the case and the history if you would first read what is already on the page. Unless you are being deliberately obtuse, the attack is not hard to find. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutralhomer, please read through all of the pages associated with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes, to see what the fuss is about. Adding infoboxes is not an attack (and Sandy never said it was), but there are factions associated with adding/removing infoboxes, and it is the kind of thing several people were restricted over. A lot of people think that adding/removing infoboxes is a really big deal, and Gerda was one of several people who gained editing restrictions when the issue was taken before ArbCom. This is not Sandy unilaterally imposing editing restrictions, or even several editors imposing them - it is a major issue that was taken before ArbCom that has resulted multiple ArbCom-enforced editing restrictions. You may not find it a big deal to add an infobox, but a lot of people do. I hope this clears some things up. Dana boomer (talk) 00:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Dana! I was beginning to wonder if I was speaking Spanish :) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Dana: TL;DR, gimme the short version.

@Sandy: You were speaking, what I like to call, "round-about English". English that goes around in circles and doesn't really make a point, but uses big words. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? I gave you the short version above. So let me try again, with little words and short sentences. Some people like infoboxes. Some don't. They fight. They went to ArbCom. ArbCom told a bunch of people to knock it off. Including Gerda. </end of short sentences> Now, for some advice: if you want to get involved in the infobox issue, I suggest you get used to reading long pages, and drop TL;DR from your vocabulary. Dana boomer (talk) 01:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, seriously. ArbCom discussions all meld into one after awhile, I like short versions. Still doesn't explain why people don't like infoboxes and how that prevents someone from editing/expanding an article....or editing period in some cases.

I'll drop TL;DR from my vocabulary when you drop the attitude. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it was simple and able to be explained in a sentence, a paragraph, even a computer screen's-worth of text, it wouldn't be at ArbCom. To understand why some people/projects don't like infoboxes, you have to read their arguments - it has to do with appearance, necessity, breaking complicated ideas into little (sometimes oversimplified) chunks, etc. ArbCom doesn't rule on content though, they rule on conduct. And they ruled that several editors, including Gerda, had acted in such a way (tendentious editing, editing against consensus, WP:IDHT, etc.) as to necessitate sanctions. In Gerda's case, this included an injunction against adding infoboxes to any article she hadn't created. Also, per ArbCom policy, if an editor is restricted from doing something, other editors are prohibited for doing that something for them, as is currently being explained at the ArbCom clarifications page. But again, this whole paragraph that I have just written is way too simplistic (and I'm sure I'm going to hear about it from people who participated in the case). As I said above, if you want to understand disputes that end up at ArbCom, you're going to need to be able to read and digest long pages, because simple disputes that can be easily explained in non-TLDR fashion don't end up at ArbCom. And I would have seriously thought that an experienced editor such as yourself would not have to have this explained to him, several times, by several editors. Dana boomer (talk) 01:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One, I like bite-sized bits of information.

Two, I think ArbCom is waaay too full of themselves, always have, and they all have forgotten why they are here.

Three, anything can be explained in non-TLDR fashion if you take the time.

Four, when an infobox causes an ArbCom investigation, people are taking themselves waaay too seriously and have forgotten why they are here.

Five, I have Aspergers (and Dyslexic), I lose interest in something quickly if not explained fast (hence the bite-sized bits of information).

Six, stupid decisions by bureaucracy (like in DC) normally have to be explained several times, so that even the most experienced people (like in DC) can understand it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that does clarify why you'd perceive infoboxes as an unalloyed good. If you want some background, User:Geogre/Templates is well-balanced but you may find it a bit long; Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes is more easily read but also more polemical. Like most ARBCOM decisions, this isn't really "about" infoboxes (or dashes-versus-hyphens, or whatever triviality you like); it's about people's behavior making use of them. Gerda's behavior during the case made it clear that she was going to continue making and using infoboxes in ways that upset other productive editors, to the maximum extent possible without breaking the letter of the rules. It's a shame that these constraints hinder her editing: she's a talented and productive editor. But she would not be laboring under an onerous external restraint if she had shown internal restraint or better judgment. Choess (talk) 15:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom cases are hardly ever about what they appear on the face of it to be about, but that's by the by. Why do some people get so agitated about infoboxes? Some infoboxes are arguably useful and others are arguably a blot on the landscape. Pigsonthewing has much to answer for here, with his empty rhetoric about metadata. Eric Corbett 16:13, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not intending to throw too many of the aforementioned "big words" at Homer, but the entire infoboxes case was just a proxy for collusion among a group of like-minded editors (that is, all about cabalism, never really even about infoboxes).

In the name of "infoboxes", one group of editors who were roughly (but not exclusively) aligned around technical issues and around returning users breaching cleanstart and various socks disrupting FA pages, has been allowed to indiscriminately block, attack and insult their "perceived" "enemies"; chase off multiple productive editors, both those building content and those also engaged in technical editing; impose technical preferences well beyond the infobox issue; apply the same admin double standards that Malleus thought he was fighting against for years in ways that they seemed to think would silence their "perceived" "enemies" (and in several cases has), choosing to ignore personalization, battleground, and personal attacks among their own; create battlegrounds not only in content editing areas like infoboxes, but also on Wikipedia-space pages, in content review processes, and on dispute resolution pages; work together to preserve POV in articles; and .... well, the list goes on ... and the arbs didn't even get to address most of this, but not surprisingly, the signs of the extent of these issues and the editors involved are showing themselves since the case closed. As always, it is unlikely that the arbs were not aware of all that was going on-- but no one presented all the evidence.

So, for Neutralhomer, although you are not the first (and won't likely be the last) to offer to or to actually act as a proxy in the broader issues surrounding the infobox case, I hope you now understand why such conduct is viewed by the arbs as disruptive, and actually has been and remains a factor in battleground conduct based on factionalism (to wit, the attack which led to this discussion). Re Choess's comments about Gerda, I suspect that what got her noticed by the arbs, although many involved went undetected, is a never-ending defense (from a well-established editor) that began to sound one time too many like "I don't know nothin' 'bout birthin' babies". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, ArbCom cases are hardly ever about what they appear to be about. Eric Corbett

Morality

I'm just perusing the talk page archives of Natalee Holloway and I came across this little gem from Talk:Natalee Holloway/Archive 4#Disappearance of Natalee Holloway: "I never remember an agreement, just your threats to oppose it based on your personal morality (aka nothing to do with Wikipedia). - User:AuburnPilot" I'm going to start collecting quotes like that. I was trying to explain the ethos here to someone yesterday. I told him it's not generally thought necessary to put a disclaimer about the unreliability of our medical content at the top of medical articles, which staggered him. Then I told him it's a generally accepted norm here that we don't care about the feelings of our subjects or readers - or each other for that matter. He thought it was sad. I'm not as angry as I used to be about it, I'm starting to find it interesting.

While I'm here: Thank you so much for all the effort you put in on this project. I am really pleased to see you so engaged these days. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:22, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favor of a disclaimer on our medical articles. With the addition to the normal POV-pushing and agenda-pushing by various researchers and corporations of the mess caused by student editing, there is no possibility we can ever keep up, and we should have a gigantic disclaimer on every article. After all, Wehwalt can install his own version of a threatening ownership on an FA; why can't we install a template on all medical content that warns everyone who hits Wikipedia first via Google that they are reading something written by RandyfromBoise? It wouldn't bother me at all; we can't keep up, we shouldn't pretend we can.

If you think that quote shows the dominant "morality" present on the Holloway article, I can only say that you ain't seen nothing yet. That's a long and deep and sordid story. What brings you to Holloway? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny! I just came here to mock them for this template:{{maintained|Wehwalt, AuburnPilot, Kww}}

Sorry I don't know how to point to it without putting it on your page. I saw Holloway mentioned on a talk page somewhere. I can't remember where. So, tell me a sordid story. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anthonyhcole it usually becomes evident to anyone who follows there for any length of time, and I think it more effective to let people discover the depth and breadth of the issues on their own. It is enough to make one wonder about the ethics associated with some professions, but then in the medical realm, we have Otto Placik and his plastic surgery edits, so "first do no harm" is no exemption when it comes to Wikipedia! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've pretty much got the idea. Grrr. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I should commend your diligence ... or point out that it's not exactly rocket science :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When you boot up the internet we should just show a disclaimer reading: "Pile of shit ahead." --Laser brain (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Wikipedia:General disclaimer states that "WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY", which is semantically equivalent if less emphatic. MastCell ^Talk 22:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I sometimes patrol medical articles using Recent changes/Medicine and can confidently assure you that anything could be in our higher-hanging fruit. As for Wikipedia's general and medical disclaimers, they may protect the Foundation from legal liability for somebody overdosing, neglecting symptoms, eschewing treatment, etc. due to what they read here (I'm not as sure as the WMF seems to be on that point) but I'm talking about moral not legal fault.

The prominence of a warning that appears behind a tiny-font link at the bottom of an article among a bunch of other tiny-font links is not commensurate with the seriousness of the potential harm. I know a lot of non-Wikipedians of widely-varying tech-savviness, and those at the more naive end of that spectrum - even the smart ones - have no idea that anyone can add whatever they like to our articles. None of them is ever likely to click the Disclaimer link. You may say, "Oh, smart people would never take anything we say seriously" but (a) I'm not so sure and (b) half our readers have a lower than average IQ. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you

		The Bio-star
		Kudos for all your work this morning on hypothyroidism! --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 15:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you! I'd rather do that than watch the testosterone fest evolving at WP:ANI! I don't know if I've ever told you that I think you have the coolest username since my last favorite coolest user name (may you not end up where he did). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bon appetit

Mrs. Drmies helped me make this tonight (and AB is a Georgia native!). Plenty of fiber, and if you crank up the heat on the butter and sage, yum. On another note, we have a dual-flush toilet downstairs which takes a little bit of force to flush. Rosie (4) claims it's too heavy for her, so you can guess what I found as an appetizer--and all of this after Liam, who wears reusable cotton diapers, made papa an extra-special pie. One final note: when Mrs. Drmies comes home from work, the next ten minutes are called "mama time". So given how important this stuff is worldwide, you should forgive the Dutch, for instance, for their "display toilets". That needs an article. Enjoy your Saturday evening, Drmies (talk) 01:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You do know, I hope, that User:Bishonen is the go-to person on toilet articles? I had Domino's pizza for dinner, so there !! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you do that to yourself? Come have dinner with us sometime. Caution: I believe butter is an essential food group, though I disagree with everything else Paula Dean has said and done. Drmies (talk) 04:42, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for what you do around here, again. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 10:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jami's role

Hey Sandy. I'm not sure what you mean by saying Jami is a "menace". (I don't agree, and I think Mike shares my perspective that she is very competent and has a tough job.) If you're specifically referring to the fact that she's signed up for all of the classes as a "volunteer" even though she is not actually serving as an Online Ambassador for them, I would do the same thing I my job was to manage the US and Canada Education Program. It's an unfortunate shortcoming in the current software that it's not simple to get an activity feed of all the classes at once without doing that, but that's got nothing to do with her.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 14:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sage Ross (WMF) She's obviously not competent in her role, and the message being put out by her/WEF/WMF is a menace. She's drinking too much Kool-Aid, and putting out the message that is being publicized and driving more and more students to Wikipedia, with worse and worse results, while doing nothing to address the severe issues that scores of us have been raising for at least two years now. This is the sort of WMF PR claptrap that is driving the bad medical editing that will end up chasing off any of us who are able to deal with it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For the excellent work you do to keep Wikipedia high quality ( at least as much as you can ). And hold the line on quality over quantity. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some stroopwafels for you!

Just a snack, best enjoyed with a cup of warm coffee. JFW | T@lk 14:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That ping was a life-saver

You're the best; I'd been looking for this article from that discussion for ages! It's a shame the book is gone; it must have sold out due to overwhelming interest in jockstraps. Эlcobbola _talk 17:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you :) I've got your book sitting right here should you ever want it. When I first went looking for it on amazon, you can imagine the images I got to browse through (I said "got" to browse through, not "had" to browse through). I gave up (eventually) and went to archives. It still makes me sad to re-read those old talk threads. We did have a good thing going there once, and it was fun, too. The education program has made medical editing not fun anymore. Best, miss you, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cannabidiol effect on epilepsy

Wrt this paper it looks like an early version was withdrawn (PMID 21212005) but the actual cited paper is PMID 22520455 which is ok, though still just primary research paper on animals. -- Colin°^Talk 12:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks, yea-- still a no go. I also feel badly that I didn't get to pinging Diannaa soon enough, and hadn't realized when I first started looking at the article that she had recently edited and may not have had a chance yet to issue the student warning. Bad news ... when I merged the text to Medical cannabis, I found that I'm going to need to spend a week in there cleaning out primary sources. Think of all the work we could be doing if we weren't TAing. We used to talk about writing the History of Tourette syndrome and that was always an exciting prospect because the material is so interesting; I have lost all motivation. I have even lost motivation to update the citations at Tourette syndrome so that dear Bencherlite can take it off of his not-run-yet list at TFA. Maybe the muse will restrike me in the New Year. Colin, I saved the first student version of that mess in my sandbox in case an example is needed later used for illustration. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:32, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't done any serious editing on Wikipedia for years. Keep meaning too. More active on Commons these day. Real life is busy. I continue to believe there is actually plenty scope for me to write articles that will be unharmed by vandals or students. I've only got myself to blame for not getting round to it. So all this doesn't discourage me but it is a timesink. I know that writing a solid article is a good defence.

I'm going to have a go at just ignoring Mike Cline completely, otherwise I will have to join you in once again unwatching the EB page. I think we need to involve the wider community. Perhaps a Signpost article coupled with a proposed policy. -- Colin°^Talk 14:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where to focus next on the problem, but I do know that what always happens is that the term ends, we get back to regular editing, and we forget how awful it is until the next university term, when we are hit again with increasingly worse but more of same.

I'm not sure whether to push hard on the proposal worked up by User:Alanyst to get a prominent disclaimer on our articles at User:Alanyst/sandbox/reliability disclaimer (discouraged that even the folks in there can't agree and there are eight versions up now, so taking that forward right now doesn't look optimal); work up a big post to WP:AN explaining the issues and asking for admin help; or to begin an essay explaining why the problems we encounter with students are not the normal "anyone can edit" stuff.

I am burnt out. Mike Cline emailed me, I explained to him that neither you nor I like to conduct Wikipedia business offline but that I would entertain his points if he posted them on Wikipedia; and I encouraged him to get to know better one of Wikpedia's finest gentlemen and scholars. It looks to me like one of the problems with any venture with WMF folks involved is that they are too accustomed to working behind closed doors, and don't have the same respect for transparency that you and I have (not meaning Mike specifically-- just the whole thing with WMF/WEF staffers). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An essay or opinion piece perhaps. I don't see why the problems with student editing should limited to medicine, though there are specific issues there with "it matters" and the controversies affect everyday life (whereas the controversies in physics are likely to be of interest only to physicists). I suspect it works better with classes that are writing less demanding articles (like a biography), are more mature, are better at written English, and of course, supervised and led by actual Wikipedians. Looking at Wadewitz's class was an eye opener -- we are lectured about working nicely with the students to help them yet that is precisely not what is happening in the "best" examples. They are self supporting. As they should be. We've been sold a pup. Rather than getting the best that academia might offer WP, we're getting the dregs, and are sometimes (like with Joordens' class) just plain abused. I don't see why I should comment on student drafts to help polish them. In fact doing so just encourages the misbelief that this is scalable. There's only one Colin, one Sandy, one Doc James. Too many people, to use your American expression, drinking the Kool-Aid. -- Colin°^Talk 14:48, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Starting a user draft essay is on my checklist. I haven't even gotten through my watchlist this morning yet. I hate what the ed program has done to us, and I hate that they do it at two key times of year: Thanksgiving, and the beginning of spring. Must I really unwatch most of the articles I care about? I will ping you when I start the essay; guests arriving in three days for Thanksgiving week. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and check this out. I removed it to user talk once, it was reinstated by Bios. Now we are not only the DailyMail; we are also Facebook. Students who know nothing about Wikipedia (and for all we know are roommates IRL) using talk pages for assessing their friends' work, even though neither of them know anything about Wikipedia's internal assessment processes. Why don't these profs have them do their facebooking on user talk pages? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandy. I checked my browser history and I did have the user's talk page open to issue a warning at 18:27 my local time; the edit must have failed to save in one of those Wikimedia-error things I am getting so often lately. Sorry about that. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know-- I was getting tons of them for about three days (but they seem to have stopped now). Anyway, I'm sorry I hadn't yet gotten around to pinging you. The education mess has been so overwhelming that I'm keeping a checklist now of things I need to return to on my watchlist, and plugging away at it as able. Diannaa if you are around, would you mind deleting User:SandyGeorgia/Sample student editing so that I can re-do it? We are likely to want to use that article as a sample in the future, and I want to be able to link to a version that doesn't mention no warning being issued, which isn't fair to you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's done. Sorry you are experiencing such a stressful period. The one article I looked at made me literally feel ill, so I can only imagine what you are going through :/. Off to the bank now, ttyl. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and thank you. I believe I've straightened out all of that at ENB. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Globe opinion piece, and Jimbo's talk

On my way to see if we should link marijuana/epilepsy article there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overagainst

I was quite open that I was a novice on an FAR. Wehwalt asked me on the FAR page for what I wanted, the goalposts as he said. "I asked you to put down what you wanted done so we could talk about it." I then used an analysis of the 'Media coverage' section to explain my thinking on is wrong in the article, giving concrete examples. Several other sections have similar problems. Kww queried and I enlarged on what I said. I'm sorry if it was the wrong place but please understand that I was told there that I had not made my position clear there so I replied there. I have never had an objection to discussing things on the Talk page and have been doing so, all they had to say was let's take this to talk. Today I immediately took the issue of the refs and external links to the talk page.

At the start there were 3 saying there was no need for a FAR, 2 for, and the first uninvolved editor said the FAR was a waste of time. I did not think it a good idea to just leave things unanswered and maybe let the FAR be halted. Sorry if that was unnecessary I continued that longer than necessary and annoyed you, I can assure you it was no fun for me either. I am a complete novice at FAR which I made clear more than once. When experienced editors of FA like Wehwalt and Kww are asking me things on a FAR page or making an argument on a FAR page I took it to be OK to reply on that same FAR page. Answers take longer than questions. I understand you want peace from me on the FAR page. You supported the FAR when it was in danger of getting squashed (I thought it was anyway), so your wish is my command. Please feel free to contact me here or on my Talk for any reason.Overagainst (talk) 19:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overagainst, I realize you have acted in good faith, and that you didn't understand FAR. That is why I made the long post on talk. Now I think the best thing everyone can do is to let it alone for a bit, and not spread the discussion all over. Let the process work, please. It is a deliberative process, and the delegates do not act rashly in either direction. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want me to shut up on the DoNH Talk page too?Overagainst (talk) 20:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know what DoNH stands for, but Overagainst, I am not your keeper, and I really don't want to be drug any further into this mess. I made a post to try to help ALL of you stay on track, mostly because what you are all doing to the delegates is miserable, and I've been in those shoes. Please do not continue to expect anything from me; it appears at times that anything I may do to try to help on that page is destined to backfire. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DoNH Talk page = Talk:Disappearance of Natalee Holloway. Disappearance of Natalee Holloway is what the article is called now. I was not clear if you when you said "I think the best thing everyone can do is to let it alone for a bit, and not spread the discussion" you thought my participating in the discussions on Talk:Disappearance of Natalee Holloway was unhelpful to the FAR. But as you have obviously not been paying any attention to Talk:Disappearance of Natalee Holloway I was being obtuse. Adieu.Overagainst (talk) 20:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, sorry-- I have not looked at the article talk page. On the DoNH, I'mADork. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment

I did think of that and that's fair comment.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--

Do get a life, old girl. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.222.228.42 (talk) 00:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you get a case of indigestion from Blenheim? [1] And who knew we can thank editors for diffs, but not SineBot? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:31, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And a history of logging out for edit warring, too. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And more edit warring logged out here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:20, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee vs. Espresso

I'm ignorant to whether or not there's a significant difference. Is there a significant difference? If so, what is it? I know it has something to do with how it's made, but it's still coffee, yes? By the way, I found your reaction hilarious. You're not hypothyroid, are you? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:19, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure am :) And there's a Wikipedia story that's related! Once, my pharmacist made a massive goof up, and I ended up with a double dosage of levothyroxine for three days. (I had a small dog who died when a friend dropped their synthroid on the floor and she got it, so I know what too much levothyroxine can do !) Well, after three nights of no sleep and before I realized the medication mixup, I made a mistake when editing, whereby I misread an article at DYK as a BLP, when it was actually a dead guy. So, although I fixed my mistake and made my peace with the article editor, in the meantime, one of my edits there was wrongly revdel'd, claiming I had vandalized, the admin (Nyttend) who did it wouldn't retract his allegation, and we ended up with an RFC. At the time, I thought it absurd that I should have to reveal on Wikipedia that my editing mistake was a result of a medication mixup for low thyroid. Now I just think it's funny :) Maybe because since then I've learned about *real* admin abuse, making that incident look trivial.

So, yes, espresso is much stronger than coffee. But I can't figure out how that made it into a review anyway, when the original study only had eight subjects. And of course, since I'm a coffee addict, inquiring minds want to know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:27, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]