We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• I can kinda help sometimes. Let me know. •  Lingzhi♦ (talk) 09:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Best thing right now would be to take a look at one or both of the two oldest and see whether you think they meet FA criteria. They need outside eyes to judge.... Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 09:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Hey Casliber. I'm actually happier when I' m fixing things than when I am asking others to fix them•  Lingzhi♦ (talk) 09:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Those two are possibly close to being kept.....actually all five have had work so if any of those pique your interest, take a look and fix away.... Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 10:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply

When an article such as Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp is demoted from class=FA, should it be left as class=??? or should it have some other class instead? I will look for your answer right here.-- DThomsen8 ( talk) 13:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Usually ???, as it requires a new assessment, but if you want to reassess it yourself that's fine too. Nikkimaria ( talk) 16:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the invitation to engage in a dialog re: the editing of the Cranial Electrotherapy Stimulation page. I am fairly new to editing Wikipedia and initially created my account for the purpose of editing the page. I am a subject matter expert as a result of working for a medical device company, but am not paid to promote any product or write Wikipedia content. I discovered the page to contain misleading information and wished to correct it. Cranial Electrotherapy Stimulation is a technology category that is in the public domain (all CES tech that I’m aware of is out of patent), so there are no companies or private interests that control or exclusively benefit from Cranial Electrotherapy Stimulation, and those companies that do make CES devices are very small, unlike the giant pharmaceutical companies that produce competing products. Indeed, one of the obstacles that CES companies have faced is the overwhelming influence of competitors that often use well-placed, influential surrogates to disseminate misinformation about CES.

Following is my assessment of content on the page that is grossly misleading:

There is insufficient evidence to determine whether or not CES with alternating current is safe and effective for treating depression.[6]

[6] Kavirajan HC, Lueck K, Chuang K. Alternating current cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES) for depression. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Jul 8;7:CD010521. Review. PMID 25000907

This extremely misleading statement is supported (in citation) by a published literature review, not a clinical trial, and the publisher of this review is a small undergraduate teaching college within the University of Bristol.

In a 2010 literature review, published in a much more respected journal, Journal of Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health Services, the conclusion is reached: “To date, whether used alone or in conjunction with pharmaceutical agents, CES has been shown to be an effective and economical therapy for mild to moderate depression.”

J Psychosoc Nurs Ment Health Serv. 2010 Nov;48(11):37-42. doi: 10.3928/02793695-20100701-01. Epub 2010 Jul 22.Cranial electrotherapy stimulation for the treatment of depression. 

Gunther M1, Phillips KD.

More importantly, there are at least two well-controlled clinical trials that have been published in respected peer-reviewed journals that provide statistically significant evidence of CES safety and effectiveness in treating depression:

Krupitsky et al. The administration of transcranial electric treatment for affective disturbances therapy in alcoholic patients. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 27:1-6, 1991

J Affect Disord. 2014 Aug;164:171-7. A Clinical Trial of Cranial Electrotherapy Stimulation for Anxiety and Comorbid Depression, doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2014.04.029. Epub 2014 Apr 21.

I attempted to add this evidence to the page, yet it was repeatedly deleted.

Critics of CES research may point to the fact that subject sizes for most studies are not large when compared with drug studies, but CES study subject sizes are typical of non-invasive medical device studies. Drug studies need to be much larger because drug therapy is a chemical intervention and causes much more serious side effects. Critics may also point to the fact that CES studies examine varying patient populations and that device brands used in the studies have slight variance in electrical output. Varying patient populations are more representative of the real world, and the variance in output of different device brands is too small to skew data. The three most important aspects of studies – quality of controls, statistical significance and rigorous peer review – are soundly met in the studies listed above. In short, the Effectiveness section of this page should not be allowed to mislead the reader into thinking that there is a complete lack of evidence when in fact there is sufficient evidence

Another sentence on the page which, left alone, is very misleading:

The exact mechanism of action of CES is unclear.[9]  

9. Rosa MA, Lisanby SH (2012). "Somatic treatments for mood disorders". Neuropsychopharmacology 37 (1): 102–16. doi:10.1038/npp.2011.225. PMC 3238088.PMID 21976043.

The author of the source (Dr. Lisanby) has a documented conflict of interest with CES. Dr. Lisanby recused herself from the 2012 FDA Panel on CES Reclassification as a result of having a conflict of interest – she has financial ties to Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation, a competing technology. Interestingly, Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation is listed in the See Also section of the Cranial Electrotherapy Stimulation page, along with Trancranial Direct Current Stimulation, another competing technology. In short, Dr. Lisanby’s review is an inappropriate citation for a statement which misleads readers into thinking that the way CES works is a complete mystery. It is not a mystery.

The mechanism of action of most brain related interventions, whether drug or device, are never completely clear, because the brain is so complex and imaging is only beginning to tell the whole story. But the way CES works is by no means a complete mystery. There is very strong evidence, published in respected journals, that CES stimulates the production of serotonin and other neurochemicals responsible for reducing and eliminating depression, anxiety and insomnia:

Liss. S. and B. Liss. Physiological and therapeutic effects of high frequency electircal pulses. Integrative physilogical and behavioral science 31:88-94, 1996

Shealy et al. Cerebralspinal fluid and plasma neurochemicals: response to cranial electrical stimulation. J. Neurol. Orthop. Med. Surg. 18: 94-97, 1996

Shealy et al. Depression: a diagnostic, neruochemical, profile & threapy with cranial electrical stimulation. J. Neurol. Orthop. Med. Surg. 10: 319-321, 1989

2005Gilula MF, Kirsch DL. (2005). Cranial electrotherapy stimulation review: a safer alternative to psychopharmaceuticals in the treatment of depression.Journal of Neurotherapy, 9(2), 2005.doi:10.1300/J184v09n02_02

Kennerly, Richard. QEEG analysis of cranial electrotherapy: a pilot study. Journal of Neurotherapy (8)2, 2004.

My efforts to provide this research have been met with repeated deletion.

The page as it stands right now seems intentionally designed to make readers think that Cranial Electrotherapy Stimulation is a risky, unproven technology. Not only is there sufficient evidence, but CES is prescribed by thousands of doctors, many at the top of the psychiatric field. The New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation recently approved the device for use in its 11 hospitals – including Bellevue, Jacobi and Metropolitan Hospitals. The page should reflect the scientific evidence and broad clinical support the technology has behind it.

Sincerely

ColumbiaLion212 ( talk) 19:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)ColumbiaLion212 reply

Dear User,

Tunisian Arabic is nominated for GA Status. Please review this work and adjust it if he involves several deficiencies.

Yours Sincerely,

-- Csisc ( talk) 12:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Hi SG. I don't know whether you saw the recent ping on my talkpage, but you may have an interest in this SPI. Feel free to comment there or not, as the mood take you. Yunshui  ^雲 _水 08:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Hi, Yunshui ... no, I did not see the ping, as I'm not editing now, but someone emailed me to look at this issue. You may note in this discussion that I pointed out recently that Dennis Brown would not-- indeed, did not-- recognize Mattisse even when she was posting right under his nose in the very same discussion, [1] so I wouldn't be holding up on SPI based on his scanty "evidence". I agree the duck is quacking, but I can't put my finger on it. On a quick glance, I don't see a single indication of Mattisse in that user; not that Mattisse might not have changed her tune, but I don't see any evidence there that will suffice for an SPI, and I don't see any edits that remind me of her. Please email me if you need more info, as I'm not editing now ... I will be happy to fill you in privately on more of her tells. Regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Thanks Sandy, appreciate the input. Yunshui  ^雲 _水 07:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC) reply

This is my latest FAC. Pleas post comments if necessary. Kailash29792 ( talk) 05:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Hi Sandy. After a really long break from WP, I involved myself in this FAC as a reviewer. I feel that it's not yet of FA standard. Laserbrain was the first to oppose. The nominator is now wondering what's taking it that long after having 5 supports and 2 opposes. Though I perfectly understand that FAC is not about votes. Can you possibly take a look? Many thanks and cheers. -- Efe ( talk) 20:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Sorry for the out-of-nowhere dropping of message. You were at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Irreplaceable. And I thought I'd give you a message. Thanks again. -- Efe ( talk) 20:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC) reply

{{ WPW Referral}}

Kalidas (film) is currently a FAC. Please post comments if necessary. Kailash29792 ( talk) 03:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply

User:Bebbebopp has been blocked as a sock of Matisse. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 01:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 13:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• [2]
• [3]... Modernist ( talk) 00:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC) reply

	Nollaig shona duit
	Best new year to my favourite crusader. You cant win them all Sandy, but god bless for trying. You have been missed. Ceoil ( talk) 19:39, 1 January 2015 (UTC) reply

	The Original Barnstar
	For your work with students on Anorexia nervosa. Stuartyeates ( talk) 22:35, 19 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Stuartyeates, nice timing and deeply appreciated :) :) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Hey, I just came here for exactly the same reason. Alright, *checks list of barnstars* it looks like you haven't received one of these in a while. :-)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your tireless effort in helping student editors contribute to Wikipedia. Sunrise ( talk) 21:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Why thanks so much, Sunrise; the encouragement is most welcome! Some day, I may get lucky and a student will stick around to help with the heavy lifting :) Best, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC) reply

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!

FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 16:57, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Thanks for all you have done this year :-) Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 22:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC) reply

		Happy Saturnalia
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC) reply

		Season's Greetings
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Adoration of the Shepherds (Poussin) is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod ( talk) 10:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC) reply

My best wishes to you and yours in this holiday season

and in the year ahead. Finetooth ( talk) 18:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC) reply

	Season's greetings!
	I hope this holiday season is festive and fulfilling and filled with love and kindness, and that 2016 will be successful and rewarding... Modernist ( talk) 23:28, 24 December 2015 (UTC) reply