My will to participate in Wikipedia has waned as real-life grief depletes my patience to deal with harassment Wikipedia editing brings. I am following only those articles I have contributed to extensively, and issues or content areas where bullies predominate. I receive pings by email only; I may continue to occasionally check my watchlist and email, but please don't count on me to regularly respond to queries or to keep up with the work I once did.
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 engageFemke andImaginesTigers 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]
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]
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]
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. Mylife right now is notgoing 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 byColin, 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 memberjust not sick in the conventional way). Right now I’m going to focus on sources however I may have some questions aboutWP: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]
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]
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,
Once the article draft is finalized and ready to publish, the new title of it will beUnited States of America v. Nicolás Maduro Moros. Thanks --cyrfaw (talk)17:58, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because of you extensive history with the page I wanted to check with you before reverting/deleting some of the talkpage comments that violateWP: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 likePANDAS andMorgellons. 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]
I want you to know that I think very highly of you. I think you and are great counterweights for each other in turns of balancing, but you are clearly more experienced than me.
In case you ever think me too critical of you, I want it expressly understood that I think highly of your work and your eye for detail, and you teach me things.
Recently I enjoyed your entry that talked about the "Exclusive: US returning Caribbean strike survivors to Colombia and Ecuador, Trump says".
Excellent reporting. I do not talk about my faith often, because I do not want people to think me biased, and I will try to be an honest reporter based on policy and articles, but I want you to know that I am praying for you and your family, and I thank you for being here and doing amazing work. Bravo!!! (:Historyguy1138 (talk)07:18, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,Historyguy1138; I'm sorry I haven't been able to keep up our chat, and I really appreciate the prayers. This topic is a tough learning curve, because not only does Trump often misspeak, but also the sources often make mistakes! Remember when Trump reported a 16 September strike, and we now know he was referring to the 15 September strike, and sources repeated that ... So a big lesson learned about attribution until we're sure! Keep the faith, and thanks for the kind words,SandyGeorgia (Talk)08:58, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For your steady capacity to listen and engage—even when tensions rise—your genuine empathy, your patience with challenging behaviors, and your commitment to keeping every conversation balanced, respectful, and grounded in credible sources, I offer this humble recognition with gratitude. Your calm presence helps people feel heard, your fairness builds trust, and your example encourages healthier dialogue around you. Thank you for choosing clarity over noise, kindness over impulse, and balance over extremes in articles about VenezuelaWilfredor (talk)14:09, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
