User talk:SandyGeorgia

Ask for help

Greetings, is there any chance you could take a look at Misti and see whether the things noted in its failed FAC can be resolved? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:49, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus, I sporadically have only small blocks of free time, often interrupted making concentration difficult, and I see issues there beyond those raised in the FAC -- it will take some time to get through and write up queries ... I will try my best, but no promises as to how long it may take. I could use article talk, but I was wondering if you would rather open a peer review to engage Femke and ImaginesTigers as well, or if you prefer to work on article talk as we usually do. In either case, it will take a while, but I will try to find time to pick away at it. I'm sorry I've not been able to be of much use to anyone lately. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PS, maybe Hawkeye7 knows why the FAC hasn't been closed yet by FACbot. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: The nomination has not been closed. That requires a {{FACClosed}} template. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:06, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have had another attempt. Let us see if that one sticks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:21, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination has been processed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:30, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Femke said on their talk page they'll be too busy, hence why I asked here. Didn't think to ask ImaginesTigers though, thanks for that advice. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:10, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jo-Jo. Let me post some thoughts on the article Talk! Shame about Femke not having time but their review was pretty detailed. – ImaginesTigers 08:59, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess going by the comments that Femke and ChatGPT gave to me, I guess the problem is in part that many of the suggested changes either make reviewing more difficult, lose comprehensiveness or break the flow. So unlike other pre-FAC writeups, here it's as much about resolving disagreements, e.g comprehensiveness vs clarity, as noting issues. I tend to think that comprehensiveness is Wikipedia's most important strength, so I tend to value it more. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:03, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo I keep intending to get back there and continue ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:29, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gentle poke. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:30, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coeliac disease

Hey, I noticed you making some edits to the Celiac page, and partially cleaning up after me after I added some newer citations. I found some really good sources that I plan to use to update and consolidate some of the older and random sources (this should also hopefully make further updates easier). However I use citer to generate my citations and they don’t have the vancouver style for citations. Is there an easy way to generate vanc citations so you don’t have to go back and change the ones I’m adding? As far as keeping the article at a FA status, I think the main thing that needs to be done is updating the sources (which will also help get rid of the unsourced areas as well). This is obviously a time consuming task, but I’m fairly confident that I could get a good start on it. If there’s anything else that jumps out at you as far as things that need to be done, let me know and I’ll add it to my list. Always nice to see your username pop up in my watchlist and I hope things are going well for you out there in the real world. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 21:09, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, ID ... thank you for taking that on. I'm not sure if you know that Jfdwolff was a founder of WP:MED, and his work warrants preserving. Don't worry about whatever cite script you use; I don't mind cleaning up. My life right now is not going well at all, and such that I can't do work that requires sustained concentration, but mindless citation cleanup work helps distract me when I am nervous and staring at the walls at home, and I don't mind doing it. But at this point, I'll probably wait 'til you're further along so I don't get in your way. (I think there's also some setting somewhere in the article that converts most authors to vauthors anyway, so I was mostly working on page ranges.)

I started listing things on the FAR, but then realized there's still enough work to be done that using the article talk page may serve better. There's some pretty dense language that could be well cleaned up by Colin, but he too might want to hold off 'til more of the updating is done. Thank you for taking it on! How about if you ping all of us (Colin, Ajpolino, Graham Beards and WAID) to talk when you're ready for the next steps? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t know he was a founder, but I saw the page and thought it was in great shape for such an old medical FA and immediately wanted to help clean it up. I appreciate the help with the citation cleanup as a lot of the Wikipedia editing I do now is late at night as my days are pretty busy (I to have a sick family member just not sick in the conventional way). Right now I’m going to focus on sources however I may have some questions about WP:WEIGHT as that’s an area I never got the hang of but I do know Colin and WAID excel in that area. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 03:30, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar

I can't really speak on behalf of the weather WikiProject, but I just saw the headache caused by the recent deletion/removal of a hurricane FA, and I wanted to apologize, in part for my own role in failing to establish, after all of these years, better standards on hurricane notability, and what should/shouldn't have articles. Believe me, that has been a point of discussion since about 2006, and there have been a lot of words about a lot of different articles over the years, which still doesn't have a proper resolution. The Hector incident may have even caused an editor to retire (the one who originally nominated Hector, and a handful of other hurricane articles). But in the spirit of trying to do things better over time, even if that means endlessly revising things and discussing things, I'd like to award you this barnstar, for putting up with the passionate (but sometimes indecisive) wiki-weather community, and continuing to try and make Wikipedia a better place. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:19, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricanehink, my apologies ... I've been so stressed IRL that I missed this message! Thank you so much for the kindness. I know it's been such a long discussion, and we've seen the pendelum swing so many times on so many issues; it must be hard for relative newcomers to understand some of what we did in the "olden days" -- always in good faith, and based on how we understood things at the time. I'm so sorry we lost an editor in that mess ... and same back at you, for sticking with it through thick and thin! All the best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:44, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I'm an eventualist, so no worries about time. I've seen how some things get formalized over the years (often through endless discussions), and despite it all, I'd still rather be a part of the process than lament why we are so ignorant about so many things. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:53, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On Venezuela-related contributions

Hi SandyGeorgia,

I wanted to sincerely thank you for your recent contributions to 2025 United States strike on Venezuelan boat and Proposed United States invasion of Venezuela. Your edits have strengthened the reliability and overall quality of these articles, and it’s clear how much care you put into ensuring accuracy and neutrality.

I also wanted to share with you a draft I first created about five years ago but left unfinished: User:Cyfraw/Indictment of Nicolás Maduro. With renewed tensions between the United States and Venezuela, I’ve decided to revive the draft and work on improving it. Given your experience and contributions to Venezuela-related articles, your input—whether through editing, sourcing, or even just providing feedback—would be especially valuable.

My hope is to develop this into a well-sourced, balanced article that complements the broader set of Venezuela-related pages currently under construction.

Once again, thank you for your hard work. I am awarding you a barnstar afterwards in recognition of your continued efforts. Best regards,

cyrfaw (talk) 17:56, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Once the article draft is finalized and ready to publish, the new title of it will be United States of America v. Nicolás Maduro Moros. Thanks --cyrfaw (talk) 17:58, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence

I’m awarding you this Barnstar in recognition of your consistent dedication and high-quality contributions to Venezuela-related articles, including 2025 United States strike on Venezuelan boat and Proposed United States invasion of Venezuela. Your careful attention to sourcing, neutrality, and detail has significantly improved the encyclopedia and provided valuable context on a complex subject. Thank you for your hard work! cyrfaw (talk) 17:56, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PANDAS talkpage

Because of you extensive history with the page I wanted to check with you before reverting/deleting some of the talkpage comments that violate WP:NOTFORUM. I would only remove ones that haven’t been responded to in an effort to clean up the talkpage a bit and discourage further discussion about things that do not pertain to improving the article. I noticed you hadn’t done this and wanted to make sure there wasn’t a reason why you hadn’t before messing with anything. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 21:12, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IntentionallyDense I think in cases like this, it's best not to further inflame those already upset ... so I just ignore the personal attacks and off topic when I can. (I've been subjected to SO much worse by regular editors on regular topics.) If we can get them to understand Wikipedia policy and guideline, and why Wikipedia follows, not leads, we get a double benefit ... they understand how to write medical content, and they may even understand how they've been misled by the medical guidance they've been following. Most first-degree relatives of PANDAS subjects, according to research, have related diagnoses, so I think some of the entrenched positions are just part of the bigger picture when editing articles like PANDAS and Morgellons. As experienced editors, we can hopefully rise above the IP rants. But I don't pretend to tell you what to do when talk page guidelines are being breached, so leave the decision to you. Thanks so much for helping out there! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn’t sure if you suspected removing content may make things worse (as i wondered that myself and decided to ask you first). I’ve been trying to take a more educational approach myself so hopefully that will help. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 21:59, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New York Times access advice

Hi Sandy sorry to bother you. I noticed on one of your edits you used ProQuest to access a New York times article.

Usually when I access New York times I try a few tricks to get free access to their articles, but I am starting to run out of tricks. I did not see ProQuest on the Wikipedia library, but is their a way you can access ProQuest for free that you know of? Or is it a paid subscription for you?

Thanks. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 13:04, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Historyguy1138. You can access ProQuest for free on WP:TWL. (I am also able to access it for free online through my local library.) Log in to TWL, then scroll down to ProQuest, then click on Access collection. Search for the article. When you find the article, the ProQuest ID is on the Detail page (or also contained in the URL). Are you not able to access ProQuest at TWL or are you having a hard time negotiating it? Let me know what else you need ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:24, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oooooh I just missed it. It was also news to me (no pun intended lol) that we could access The NYT with Proquest. It took a bit of playing around with it, but I got it. Thanks that is a very useful tool I can use in my toolbelt. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 13:52, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Historyguy1138 armyrecognition.com is not a reliable source. It is reporting an NBC source, which you might be able to find. You can install the script at user:Headbomb/unreliable, which will turn non-reliable sources red on your browser. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:57, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Global Defense News only mentions a 30 minute video, the rest of it is it's own material. Besides maybe the brief mention of the video, I did not see any of what I mentioned talked about in the video link.

I did not see anything on the list of bad sources to suggest it. Also User:Headbomb/unreliable has its own limits as it mentions.

Happy to be corrected and try and find an alternative source if it can be determined this source is bad. Historyguy1138 (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Historyguy1138 here is the RSN post that Headbomb likely used to add it to the script: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 344#armyrecognition.com]. Unless that info can be sourced to an RS, it is probably UNDUE and should be removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:46, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PS, both IndyBeetle and Nick-D are highly experienced FA MilHist editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Duly corrected then. Please leave it on there just till the end of the day tomorrow then, and I will try and find another source, if not then I will delete it myself. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 22:00, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Historyguy1138 I have searched for sources and found none ... you might try ProQuest. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:04, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Historyguy1138, leaving WP:SYNTH and non-rs (please see WP:ARMYRECOGNITION) in the article for an extra day made the repair much harder. A simple revert was in order, but to restore to the original, I had to also recover intervening edits made by other editors. Also, this edit was largely SYNTH -- the second source is unrelated to the current conflict. When you come across an obscure source, please doublecheck the archives at WP:RSN and WP:RSP before using it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:10, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have found some sources that are not as specific about U.S. military assets in Aruba and Curacao, but I wanted to run them by you first since your computer is better set up for analyzing these citations.

https://interestingengineering.com/military/us-weighs-possible-air-strikes-against-venezuela

https://www.dvidshub.net/news/421672/forward-operating-location-curacao-welcomes-addition-royal-netherlands-air-force-mq-9

This three might be considered a primary resources.

https://www.southcom.mil/Commanders-Priorities/Counter-Threats/Cooperative-Security-Locations/

https://www.afsouth.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/319233/curacaoaruba-forward-operating-locations/

https://cw.usconsulate.gov/u-s-cooperative-security-location-welcomes-new-commander/

Thanks. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 16:18, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingengineering is merely parroting the NBC exclusive, which Placeholderer has removed as WP:CRYSTAL. I haven't found the time yet to ask Placeholderer why extensive speculation from The Economist isn't CRYSTAL, but the NBC-sourced info is. In general, if you wanted to use a website like InterestingEngineering, it would be good to figure out what credentials author Christopher McFadden has, but until we are clear on CRYSTAL and the NBC exclusive report, this is a non-starter, and if we were to include it, we would use the NBC report.

Davids Hub ... how is that site reliable? Who is it? And with a 2022 date, it would be SYNTH to use it in this article.

The general info in the remaining three sources would need to be connected to this incident via a reliable source -- else WP:SYNTH. We can't string together info from several sources to draw our own conclusions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cool cool. That's why I asked. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 16:52, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better to continue article improvement discussion on article talk ... so Placeholderer and others aren't left out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure sure. I just wanted to touch on this specific issue, but yes no problem. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 17:45, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The stuff I removed as CRYSTAL was reporting of anonymous sources saying the administration was considering doing something in the future, which seemed clear CRYSTAL to me Placeholderer (talk) 19:11, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thx, Placeholderer! Now that Trump has directly said same, would you think one sentence might be warranted? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:57, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fine by me! Placeholderer (talk) 20:02, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will get to it later today ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I figured I'd add a mention myself since I find myself with some WP time, but ended up puzzling over how to phrase a mention. Reuters clearly reports Trump said on Tuesday his administration is considering attacking drug cartels "coming by land" in Venezuela (emphasis added), but I can't find any reporting of a quote that shows Trump's statement referring to potential operations in Venezuela rather than just against "cartels coming by land." Miami Herald just says that President Donald Trump said Tuesday that his administration is considering new military action against drug cartels operating out of Venezuela, including operations “by land,” and that Trump’s comments align with recent media reports suggesting the administration is reviewing plans for targeted operations inside Venezuela (emphasis added). The other coverage I see at a glance is just syndication (if I'm using that word right) of the Reuters report, and some Chinese state newsorg coverage I didn't read. Normally in situations like this I'd think it'd make sense to just quote what Reuters says, but here the article is so short that pretty much any quote could be a copyvio.

Am I just overthinking this? Placeholderer (talk) 21:06, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I trust you'll work it out ... I'm too busy the rest of the afternoon to get to it, and I suspect we'll know soon enough, so I'm sure whatever you add will be fine! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:21, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]