User talk:SandyGeorgia: Difference between revisions

FACs needing feedback ; view • edit
Mission: Impossible – Fallout	Review it now
Galileo project	Review it now
Worlds (Porter Robinson album)	Review it now
I'm God	Review it now

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 14:32, 20 February 2021

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 114 as User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch113 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

About me

Talk to me

To do list

Tools and other
useful things

Some of
my work

Nice
things

Yukky
things

To do

Tools and other
useful things

Some of
my work

Nice
things

Yukky
things

Old FA archive questions

See User talk:SandyGeorgia/archFASorting. Done:

Hello

Hello again. I just wanted to say good luck with the FAC proposal. I hope that it continues to generate discussion and will help with some of the larger issues in the FAC space. I hope you are doing well and enjoying your week! Aoba47 (talk) 00:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw this proposal (which I really like) because of the above comment—I wonder if this would be a good time to codify doing spot-checks for new nominators? Seems a consistently de facto norm that I wonder if we may as well officiate. Aza24 (talk) 00:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you ... always good to hear from you ... but the wheels turn slowly and the time may not be right just yet. I hope you are well, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:07, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that timing is very important and I think it is best to make sure everything is set and perfect before putting it out for wider consideration. I hope that my message was not pressuring you in any way. I was more so saying that I think your proposal is very interesting and the two-stage process has a lot of potential. I've been feeling a little under the weather lately, but it's nothing that rest cannot handle (at least hopefully lol). Aoba47 (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also just saw this proposal. Perhaps comprehensiveness should be in step 1? If the article doesn't have enough info, or omits major sources, waiting until step 2 to point this out might cause the article to need another source review, thus bouncing an FAC/FAPC back-and-forth. Z1720 (talk) 02:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720 I am still quite behind after all day out yesterday, but would prefer to answer that over at User talk:SandyGeorgia/sandbox4 to keep everything in one place ... I'll get to it :)

Aoba47, your comment left me a bit worried; I hope you are OK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for making you worried and thank you for checking up on me! Thankfully, I am feeling much better now. I'm not entirely sure why I felt under the weather, but it was nothing serious :) Aoba47 (talk) 17:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to hear that, Aoba47; the last year has certainly taught us how important our health is! Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I have decided to return to Wikipedia editing as I do genuinely enjoy the process. Apologies for all of the back and forth for leaving and returning to Wikipedia as it is admittedly quite obnoxious. I have learned quite a bit from my short break about focusing on what I enjoy, etc. Anyway, I hope you are doing well! :) Aoba47 (talk) 02:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Aoba47 even short breaks are healthy ... and recommended ! But I am glad you are back, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad to be back and it is always nice to hear from you. I hope things with you are going well! Aoba47 (talk) 02:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the randomness of this message. I just saw the recent discussion of Today's Featured Article (here). If you are looking for an alternative, I was originally going to nominate the "Blindfold Me" article for the Valentine's Day slot as this is the 15th anniversary of the song's release and it would be a different spin on the holiday. Just curious of your opinion there? I did not want to raise this point in the thread as I do not want to come across as opportunistic for suggesting my own FA as an alternative and I have tons of respect for the editor who worked on the Manson article. Aoba47 (talk) 06:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair though, my choice may run into similar problems. This song was recorded by Kelis and Nas during their marriage. They have since divorced, and Kelis has accused Nas of physically and mentally abusing her so on second thought, scratch my idea completely. Replacing Manson with another problematic thing would only make it worse. I should have realized that prior to posting my message ><. Aoba47 (talk) 06:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vampire

Hi there, Sandy. Sorry if you're busy, and if you are, feel free to ignore this, but I stumbled upon vampire today and noticed, with pleasure, that it was at FA. I am sure you're familiar with the creeping horror of reading the article and seeing, oh no, this is troubled. If you ever have the time to take a look, I'd appreciate it. I don't like to flag up articles but, honestly, I'd currently oppose it at FAC under comprehensiveness and reliable citations... Looking back at the review process, it appears very few people had familiarity with the subject matter. I'd appreciate your input. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 11:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ImaginesTigers, This is a 2008 promotion, so it is listed at WP:URFA/2020. I would suggest listing your concerns at the talk page and noting it at the URFA page. (t · c) buidhe 16:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your participation at URFA or FAR would be greatly appreciated, I'm sure. (t · c) buidhe 16:09, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ImaginesTigers, I have been struggling to get back in the saddle since the detached retina. Buidhe has this right; the way to do it is to put a review on the article talk page, probably using the section heading WP:URFA/2020 review, outlining the deficiencies. Then you link that note of deficiencies in the Notes field at WP:URFA/2020. Give it a week or so to see if any active editors engage, and if the don't, upgrade it to a Featured article review notice, adding it to Wikipedia:Featured article review/notices given. And then wait a few weeks, and submit it to WP:FAR if needed. The goal is to get articles brought to standard, so it is good to approach the whole process with patience, if you know there are still active editors who may be willing to upgrade the article. In situations where it is clear that active editors are gone, and no one is watching the article, you can go straight to Notice given, with the idea of heading to FAR in a few weeks. As Buidhe mentioned, we could really use more hands on deck at WP:URFA/2020. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, both of you, for the reply. I'm sorry I didn't reply sooner—life's been hectic. I'll try and get around to this as soon as I can, but it could be a few weeks away. Thanks for informing me about that stuff; I'll skim through the list and see if there's anything else I have the expertise or know-how to review. PS. My first FA nomination passed a few days ago. I'm so happy! — ImaginesTigers (talk) 01:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Predictive Text (and Admin highlighting info).....

You have a busy and active talk page, so I am responding to your recent query under a dedicated section. Here is the previously posted info you are seeking: User:Tribe of Tiger/sandbox4. I hope it will be helpful. Best wishes, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 01:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tribe of Tiger, thanks so much for that ... now it is here where I won't lose it! I will sort through it the next time I have some downtime for iPad reading. I appreciate your effort! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia, well, it's a pretty short read, wish there was more. Just discovered this today [3], which may be useful, if you have an iPhone. I am still clinging, tooth & claw, to my ancient "non-smart" cell phone! Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 22:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help, ToT ... I did a review this am for Ceoil (below) on the real computer, and now the back is spasming like crazy, so I am on sofa, with a tennis ball stuck in my back, iPad typing. I checked settings, and I do have predictive text on. It gives me word choices, but that does not speed up my hunt and peck, not does it help me with wikimarkup ... what am I missing? It is wikimarkup that is so difficult ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But I think the mashable info will help ... will try to sort it when not in pain ... Thx! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:08, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I alternate between laying on these hard things and ice to try to make the spasms stop. Giving birth was easier. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia, oh, I am so sorry this has not helped. You are not missing anything, AFAIK. I don't edit on your more sophisticated level, with a lot of wiki markup, so I was thrilled with the Predictive text. My ten fingers remembered how to spell words, and type swiftly, but the two thumbs did not, although I now realize they are growing smarter. Still, I must hunt and peck for wiki markup. (Two tennis balls, in a sock, will enable you to apply pressure to two troublesome area, at once, FYI) I imagine that in the future, we will have virtual keyboards that allow us to "air type" without even touching a device. Surely, this is would be possible, for those of us touch type. Attractive finger caps or decorative studs imbedded in our fingernails, which could interface with a device and learn our finger movements. Some hope for the future? And, as Femkemilene mentions, there is speech recognition, which one of our long-term editors, possibly an admin, uses (will have to check). Sorry I could not provide more assistance. Best wishes! Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 07:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your info is probably very helpful, i just have been in too much ongoing pain to focus on it, thx for trying to help, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Buidhe's swift key here to remind self: [4] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) I'm relying heavily on speech recognition, which allows me to lie down when my back pain becomes too bad. Dragon NaturallySpeaking, while pricey, allows you to make commands including wiki markup. For me the accuracy isn't great, but that's mainly my Dutch accent. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Femkemilene not sure what you mean that you can speak wikimarkup ... could you give me an example of what you speak to generate markup? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of options.

Words can be added. So saying SandyGeorgia renders SandyGeorgia for me.
Easy commands can be added via a user interface. "Open watchlist" opens a new tab, types the url and presses enter. Similarly, "ping user" types {{u|.
Difficult commands can be programmed up. For instance, cite report would insert that template, and allow me to toggle through the various parameters. There is no phone support for this function however. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, sounds awesome ... thanks ! Unless something improves, this could be a good option for me! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that the learning curve is not small, but it's considered some of the best software in its class. Don't expect to know everything the first week. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, you might like to talk to User:Graham87, who is the long-term user/Admin that I mentioned above. Graham87 has been blind since birth. According to his user page: "I use the screen reader JAWS, with a speech synthesiser, to access the Internet." I am unfamiliar with the technical aspects that Femkemilene mentioned, but Graham may be another good source of information, for interacting with the internet by speech versus typing. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 01:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tribe of Tiger: Sandy and I go back a long way. I don't know anything about speech-to-text solutions; I just use a regular keyboard and my speech synthesiser speaks what I type and the text on the screen. Graham87 05:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That we do, Graham ... you have bailed me out a gazillion times! Thanks, Tribe of Tiger (and everyone) for trying to help me with my back issues, but now I have a new dilemma :). I spilled coffee on my laptop keyboard, fortunately had purchased a warranty, and have mailed it off to Texas for repair, and now it is stuck in a FedEx weather delay somewhere. So, I purchased a bluetooth keyboard for my iPad for the interim, and am adapting. I am wondering if this may be my solution, as I am now able to type with my iPad ! It’s not ideal, but it may turn out to be an inexpensive solution to my dilemma; time will tell. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beaver

So I've been improving the article since the last FAC and had a new copyedit. I still a bit nervous about nominating it. I haven't had to do multiple FACs for an article since 2012. I think I fixed the problems from last time, but could you take a look? LittleJerry (talk) 23:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LittleJerry happy to have a look, but it may be a few day; I urgently ower Jo-Jo Eumerus first a review of an article she has been waiting over a month on ... Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LittleJerry update here: [5] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay. LittleJerry (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MedRS

Simple question: is this a suitable source for Zoster vaccine? I don't really understand the MEDRS standard. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 02:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(a Sandy-friendly talk-page stalker just jumping in, quite uninvited :) Basically no Ovinus, I think not, because this is a cohort study (that is to say, a *primary* study, albeit one conducted on a pre-existing database), and would generally be considered, per WP:MEDRS, a primary source. Hope this helps, though of course Sandy may have something to add. Best, 86.186.168.197 (talk) 16:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, 86 ... sorry for delay and brevity, spilled coffee on my laptop so it is in repair, ipad typing.
Ovinus, WP:MEDRS explains what primary vs secondary sources are in medicine. That is a primary source. I actually wouldn’t mind using it in a footnote for the very little new info it provides, not more than a phrase, but if you tell me what you want to do with the article, I can better guide you and give you some better overall reviews. All that study does is extend what is already known about Shingrix via secondary sources and clinical populations to non-clinical population, so it does not add much to the article anyway. Changes nothing ... Shingrix works, but side effects are no fun. Since I was one of the one in six who was very sick twice with Shingrix, happy to lend a hand there when I get my computer back. ( I do seem to hit the jackpot with medical stuff lately ;). For now, this may help: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ovinus, here are some secondary reviews:

Stoker K, Levien TL, Baker DE (June 2018). "Zoster Vaccine Recombinant, Adjuvanted". Hosp Pharm. 53 (3): 136–141. doi:10.1177/0018578718767103. PMC 6102791. PMID 30147131.
Levin MJ, Weinberg A (2019). "Immune responses to zoster vaccines". Hum Vaccin Immunother. 15 (4): 772–777. doi:10.1080/21645515.2018.1560918. PMC 6605864. PMID 30676834.
Shah RA, Limmer AL, Nwannunu CE, Patel RR, Mui UN, Tyring SK (July 2019). "Shingrix for Herpes Zoster: A Review". Skin Therapy Lett. 24 (4): 5–7. PMID 31339679.
Singh G, Song S, Choi E, Lee PB, Nahm FS (July 2020). "Recombinant zoster vaccine (Shingrix®): a new option for the prevention of herpes zoster and postherpetic neuralgia". Korean J Pain. 33 (3): 201–207. doi:10.3344/kjp.2020.33.3.201. PMC 7336348. PMID 32606264.

I am pretty sure that the journal that published the primary study is higher quality than any of the (above) reviews.

Here are the best recent reviews:

Tricco AC, Zarin W, Cardoso R, Veroniki AA, Khan PA, Nincic V, Ghassemi M, Warren R, Sharpe JP, Page AV, Straus SE (October 2018). "Efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of herpes zoster vaccines in adults aged 50 and older: systematic review and network meta-analysis". BMJ. 363: k4029. doi:10.1136/bmj.k4029. PMC 6201212. PMID 30361202.
Gagliardi AM, Andriolo BN, Torloni MR, Soares BG, de Oliveira Gomes J, Andriolo RB, Canteiro Cruz E (November 2019). "Vaccines for preventing herpes zoster in older adults". Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 (11). doi:10.1002/14651858.CD008858.pub4. PMC 6836378. PMID 31696946.

Hard to help when I can only hunt and peck, but that is a start, IP 86 or WhatamIdoing may guide you further until I get my computer back from repair. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Ovinus, for evidence on efficacy/effectiveness and safety, the last two (the 2019 Cochrane review, and the 2018 systematic review with meta-analysis published in the BMJ) would both be considered high-quality MEDRS. For a broader perspective, you might consider consulting PMID 29431387, a 2017 review article published in another respected journal, which takes into account 2017 guidance [6] published by the CDC (a type of MEDRS sourcing discussed in the guideline at WP:MEDORG):

Saguil A, Kane S, Mercado M, Lauters R (November 2017). "Herpes Zoster and Postherpetic Neuralgia: Prevention and Management". American Family Physician. 96 (10): 656–663. PMID 29431387.
86.186.168.197 (talk) 18:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both! So if I'm getting this right, we use reviews published in reputable journals, which survey multiple studies (often primary sources)? I didn't previously realize the difference. Meanwhile these primary sources should only be used as primary sources (e.g. Sokal affair) and shouldn't be used for medical claims. Sincerely, Ovinus (talk) 14:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There’s a bit more to MEDRS, but you have that part basically right. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Help, please

Hello Sandy, I hope you and yours are well and staying Covid free. Soon, I hope, everyone will be vaccinated and this can go the way of polio and measles and other diseases we have survived and conquered. I never thought I would live to see such a thing, but it has been quite an experience. Thank goodness for WP! It has kept me sane - well as sane as I get anyway. I need help learning how to split articles. I have read the page on it and am having trouble making sense of the directions. Steps 2 says "Create the new article by opening the empty page" - what empty page? Where is it and when and how was it created? I have been working at Problem of evil. Sandy it is 185,000 bytes! I don't know how many words that is, but I do know it needs to be split. I am thinking that splitting it in two, with sections 4 and 5 becoming "religious responses" or something, and then splitting off each type of theodicy into its own article with the main article containing only short summaries of each would be appropriate, but Sandy, I simply don't know how to begin. Step one is "Prepare the source article by grouping the material to be split out into a single section" - how the heck do I do that? If I can learn how to do this, I will no doubt go back and do the same to Biblical criticism as well, you were right, but it hurts me to say it. :-) At any rate, I hope you are willing to help. Thanx Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jen ... I am glad to help (saw the explanation on Mike’s talk), but I am working at a disadvantage as I spilled coffee on my laptop and it is gone off to repair in, of all places, Texas, which is shut down! I purchased a tiny bluetooth keyboard for my iPad and am learning to type on it. I can try to help you tomorrow. In the meantime, you could get up to speed on the most important aspect, WP:CWW— when you split off the text it is very important that you always use an edit summary that includes a wikilink to the article you are copying from. If you can read up on that part, I can try to walk you through how to copy the content into a new article. Let’s pick one to start with ... what would be the name of the first (new) article that you would split content to ? You will need to be patient with my typing as I learn to deal with this tiny little keyboard :). Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to the page size tool I have installed, it's 13,439 words, not counting the footnotes, references, block quotes, bullet bits, image captions, infobox, headings, or the numbered lists. Quite impressive. Hog Farm _Talk 06:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, HF; Jen, it would also help if you would give me a link to the page that provides the instructions your are following ... I have never read instructions, just know how to do it, but I want to be sure that I am reading what you are reading so we are on the same page. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jen, after you’ve read up on WP:CWW and WP:SS, the next thing, perhaps, is to look at an example of how Summary style works. I offer my own Tourette syndrome so you can see how the hatnotes and sub-articles work:

As you can see, all of that information can’t go in to one article, so I use summary style. At one point, I thought I would go for a featured topic but I lost interest :). But the advantage to you (eg at biblical criticism) is multiple FAs that are easier to maintain. As you look through my examples, think about what the lead sentence would be for each of your sub-articles, and think also about what you have to add to the bottom of each article (in terms of categories, etc, so the new page patrollers won’t be triggered when you start the new articles :). Off to bed for now, that gives you some info to chew on for now ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bless you, you wonderful person! Of all the people I have met here, I knew you would be most likely to come through for me - and know what you are talking about. ;-) I referenced [7] on splitting a page. They clearly did not have you proof reading for them...

I don't know which to do first. I checked and there are no individual articles for each of these major theodicies, which is a gross oversight in my philosophical playbook. I want to write each one! And I want to edit the existing article into a shorter summary style. But I suppose sections 4 and 5 should be split off first as 'Religious responses to the problem of evil' although it will be an inadequate article on its own, it can be improved later. It's a little overwhelming knowing what to do first.

Read the 'copying within WP' and have no problem complying. I was already somewhat familiar with this as I had a whole section reverted once when I copied myself and didn't know to note it. (I seem to learn things in backwards order here.) Also familiar with summary style which I have been using ob Christian ethics which I also recently redid. I will check out your articles to see if I can figure out hatnotes and sub-articles. My brain gets overloaded fast these days. You may be the one having to go slowly for me instead of the other way around.

Hog Farm, how did you get that word count? I have just spent 45 minutes searching for how to do a word count and couldn't find it. Please share!

I have no problem being as patient with you as you need. Take your time. There is no time limit on this, no one is going to close us out for taking too long, we can work as you are able. I am just grateful, period. Tomorrow is great. Thank you thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Prosesize is the easiest tool. (Note, WP:PROSESIZE redirects elsewhere, so the caps are important, might be worth an RFD at some point). I find it useful for the handful of times I need to determine DYK expansion. It's particularly useful at paring down how much of the byte county you see in the page history is actual prose and how much is wikitext code gibberish (infobox syntax can really rack up some byte count at times). It highlights in yellow what it's counting in the word/prose byte counts (never footnotes, block quotes, etc; it has bug to where about 5-10% of the time it won't count the lead on the first try). I find it pretty useful when I need to know such things. Hog Farm _Talk 06:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm You have no idea how much help this will be to me! Thank you so much. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, WP:PROPERSPLIT is ...awful. No wonder you are confused. So, if you’ve read everything else, remember to add an edit summary when copying content, have thought about which categories and external links you will need to add and what the new lead will look like, then just type the name of the new article somewhere, This is my new article name (like in your sandbox, or in to the search engine), and click on it, and you will see “you may create this page”, click on that, and create the page. Then copy your content in to there making sure the edit summary says, “copied from” the old article name with a live wikilink. You will need to have two different windows open in your browser ... the one you are copying from and the new article you are copying to. Try not to save the new article until you have added a proper lead sentence and categories so the new page patrollers won’t have you :). And don’t forget to add the references section. You can worry about deleting content from the old article after you have the new article working, but again, when you delete the content from the old article, be sure to say in edit summary, “content moved to” with a live link to the new article. Basically, you are just creating a new article and the only thing that is really crucial is that you follow WP:CWW by indicating in edit summary where you got the content. Then, don’t forget to tag the new article talk page with the Wikiproject tags that are on the old article. Let me know which part of this you don’t understand, since typing on this little keyboard with no mouse does not have me at my finest :) :). Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia It seems quite clear reading this. Why did they make it sound so complicated? But then you are better at explaining things than most people. You have that innate talent of boiling things down to their basics. Most of us are good at the opposite - complicating things. :-) I think I can do all this. I am concerned about the external links - and I know I will have to check the references to be sure they are all included correctly - but otherwise this seems pretty straightforward. Is it okay if I have you check my work before submitting anything? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Religious responses to the problem of evil

I am not sure how I could check your work in advance, because you have to just do it, but I am willing if you can think of a way. There is not much you can mess up that is not fixable as long as you attribute per WP:CWW everytime you copy, and whenever you make a big deletion, explain in edit summary where the content went so the vandal patrollers don’t think you are destroying the sum of all human knowledge :) . Remember that once you get your article names and structure in place, you can continue moving things around as long as you attribute. Start slow and I will watch :). Also, Hog Farm can use his adminly tools to fix anything disastrous. How about if we follow these steps to start ? The trickiest part is having two windows open at the same time and making sure you don’t mix up which is which ! Remember, you don’t have to do it all at once ... you can work in pieces, as long as the new article you create has the basic that the new page patrollers won’t tag it for deletion (enough sources for notability, no glaring issues that will trigger anything for new page patrollers) ... edit summaries indicating you are still working help keep the new page patrollers at bay.

Pick a section of problem of evil that you intend to summarize.
Create a redlinked hatnote at the top of that section, {{main|Name of new article}}, which I will see. Make sure you indicate in edit summary “setting up main hatnote for an article I will next create”, or the vandal patrollers may delete the hatnote because it contains a non-existent article momentarily.
Copy the content you want to move to name of new article.
Click on the redlink for name of new article, paste your content in there with an edit summary “copied content from problem of evil.
Remember to add a lead sentence (you can fix it up later), and {{reflist}} at the bottom, and the same categories as at the main article.
Save the new article, making sure you used the edit summary.
Tag the new article talk page with WikiProject links as at the old article.
Now go back to problem of evil and cut the content you want to cut, making sure to leave an adequate WP:SS summary, and making sure to use an edit summary “moved to name of new article”.
And then keep moving pieces like that, and fixing up the new article, just making sure to always attribute per WP:CWW.

Good luck ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS, another thing you might do is put a {{inuse}} template on each article while you are working, so that new page patrollers and vandal whackers are aware you are still working. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What I do is a little different than Sandy's. I copy the content to a userspace draft, and user an edit summary with the pasting pointing to the old article. I then use {{Copied}} and place it on the talk page of both articles (the template just requires the url of the diff, the url of the revision of the page as of when you copied, and the names of the articles. See Talk:Battle of Marais des Cygnes for an example of that template in action.) Don't remove the content from the article it was originally in yet. Then, work the draft up in your userspace until it's ready to be moved to the mainspace. Once you move the draft, you can then remove the content from the first article (or better yet, summarize it down to a paragraph and then have a {{main}} pointing to the split-off article. In the removal edit summary, say something like "content split off to [page name]". This way is a bit more complicated, but it saves the fear of having the NPP folks catch you in the middle of a lengthy drafting. And if something goes terribly wrong with either way, ping me and I can G6 or perform a WP:RM/T or even revdel if need be. Hog Farm _Talk 22:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That works, too! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shew! I was worried there for a minute. I read your instructions and started, then came back and read the rest and thought uh-oh, because I have done it as Hog Farm says he has - I copied everything to my sandbox without deleting anything yet. It is all still in the original article but it's also in my sandbox. So now I create a new article and just paste it all in with the edit summary saying that's what I did? Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:18, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If it's in a user sandbox, your best bet is to just move the sandbox to the desired article space title and then clean up the formatting. Hog Farm _Talk 00:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I did it. The article now exists as Religious responses to the problem of evil. My heart is actually thumping! :-) Now I go delete that same content from the original article and put the notice on the talk page right? Jeez I hope so! If I screw up, you can rescue the content right? Here goes!Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:33, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See my edits; otherwise, I think you’ve got it! Problem of evil is now at 8,400 words of prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:55, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Except you still need to bring over some of the sources to deal with HarvRef errors:

Jones & Ryan 2006, p. 266. Harv error: link from CITEREFJonesRyan2006 doesn't point to any citation.
Sarma 2000, pp. 19–21. Harv error: link from CITEREFSarma2000 doesn't point to any citation.
Sharma 1962, p. 361. Harv error: link from CITEREFSharma1962 doesn't point to any citation.
Sharma 1962, pp. 270, 370–71. Harv error: link from CITEREFSharma1962 doesn't point to any citation.
Sharma 1962, pp. 270, 370–71, Quote: The problem of evil and suffering in the world is the most difficult one in Theism. We have explained Madhva's attitude to the allied problem of freedom and freewill, on the basis of the doctrine of natural selection of good or bad and of the tripartite classification of souls. It is not therefore necessary for Madhva to answer the question of the consistency of evil with Divine goodness.. Harv error: link from CITEREFSharma1962 doesn't point to any citation

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are amazingly wonderful! Thank you for those references, for all the help, and mentoring and just in general putting up with me. I can't say thank you enough. Now it is an hour past dinner and my husband is giving me looks so I will come back and fix those refs in a couple hours, but thank you Sandy! And thank you Hog Farm. I could not - would not - have attempted this on my own, and I think the article is better for it. I still have some content clean up to do in a couple of places - I don't understand people writing on philosophy if they don't understand it, but that's why I don't write medical articles. I wanted to tell you I have a dear friend with Tourettes. I appreciated your article. It was brilliant. Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So glad you liked Tourette syndrome! It is so common that we all have a dear friend with Tourette’s ... even if we or they don’t know it. Have a nice dinner! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:06, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FAC review?

Hi Sandy, I know that you are up to your neck with things, but Hog Farm could do with a hand. His current FAC - Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/4th Missouri Infantry Regiment (Confederate)/archive1 - has attracted interest from three experienced reviewers *cough* but all are MilHist aficionados. Any chance that you could skim the article for jargon and specialist terminology and to check it is broadly comprehensible to a general audience? If not, no worries. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild Will do ... I have been reluctant to engage content since I am iPad typing (my computer is stuck in a FedEx weather delay en route to Texas for repair), but I am slowly adapting to the flimsy temporary bluetooth keyboard I got to use with my iPad while I wait for my computer. Will get to it later today, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your over-all efforts. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Gog the Mild submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

SandyGeorgia is Endlessly busy:submits a lot of high quality and thoughtful reviews at FAC, puts in a shift and a half at FAR and seems determined to single-handedly revitalise PR. All top level and important areas. Any one of these would merit an EotW award, all three has me wondering if she is the beta-test of an advanced AI. Has nurtured any number of editors to higher levels than they thought they were capable of and been the driving force behind dragging more broken-down old FAs up to scratch than I care to think about. Sandy spares Wikipedia endless high-level time and effort and the encyclopedia is immeasurably richer for her efforts.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 14:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 191: / Line 191: @@
 |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em; color:#606570" |'''Editor of the Week'''
 |-
-|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 2px solid lightgray" |Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as [[WP:Editor of the Week|Editor of the Week]] in recognition of {{{briefreason}}}. Thank you for the great contributions! <span style="color:#a0a2a5">(courtesy of the [[WP:WER|<span style="color:#80c0ff">Wikipedia Editor Retention Project</span>]])</span>
+|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 2px solid lightgray" |Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as [[WP:Editor of the Week|Editor of the Week]] in recognition of your over-all efforts. Thank you for the great contributions! <span style="color:#a0a2a5">(courtesy of the [[WP:WER|<span style="color:#80c0ff">Wikipedia Editor Retention Project</span>]])</span>
 |}
-[[User:{{{nominator}}}]] submitted the following nomination for [[WP:Editor of the Week|Editor of the Week]]:
+[[User:Gog the Mild]] submitted the following nomination for [[WP:Editor of the Week|Editor of the Week]]:
+:SandyGeorgia is Endlessly busy:submits a ''lot'' of high quality and thoughtful reviews at FAC, puts in a shift and a half at FAR and seems determined to single-handedly revitalise PR. All top level and important areas. Any one of these would merit an EotW award, all three has me wondering if she is the beta-test of an advanced AI. Has nurtured any number of editors to higher levels than they thought they were capable of and been the driving force behind dragging more broken-down old FAs up to scratch than I care to think about. Sandy spares Wikipedia endless high-level time and effort and the encyclopedia is immeasurably richer for her efforts.
-:{{{nominationtext}}}
 You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:
 <pre>{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}</pre>