User talk:Anthonyhcole/Archive5

Nomination of Rajesh Bhola for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rajesh Bhola is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajesh Bhola until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Alexf^(talk) 21:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AFT5 update

Hey Anthonyhcole. I'm sorry to say that some bugs in code that the Article Feedback Tool is dependent on have resulted in us still not being able to deploy the latest version to en-wiki - although one advantage is that, because it's functioning on the German and French Wikipedias, the eventual release here will contain fixes for several newly-detected bugs without us having to bother you with them :P. At the moment, we're talking about several weeks of wait, I'm afraid - although the fix itself is not complex, it's dependent on Platform freeing up time to make and deploy it, and they're currently rather busy. I'll let you know when I have more news. Thanks :) Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Umberto Saba & bird.jpg

Hi, I note you uploaded this media, would you mind expanding the fair use rationale so it addresses ALL 10 points of WP:NFCC?Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Saba 1883.jpg

Hi, I note you uploaded this media, would you mind expanding the fair use rationale so it addresses ALL 10 points of WP:NFCC?Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Saba receiving doctorate.jpg

Hi, I note you uploaded this media, would you mind expanding the fair use rationale so it addresses ALL 10 points of WP:NFCC?Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:The Death of Socrates cropped.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:The Death of Socrates cropped.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Some stroopwafels for you!

I loved your comments on Jimbo's talk page re: the Streisand effect. Bearian (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bearian! --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for undeletion of article Rajesh Bhola

The article Rajesh Bhola has been susequently supported with many more pertinent references to establish notability of the subject. All references are sourced from reputed newspapers and certification by United Kingdom Accreditation Service. The article may be considered for restoration.Shale123 (talk) 04:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting a favor

Hi Anthony. Thanks for removing the forest plot in the TM article. It was likely meaningless to most readers, and other than TM, Qi Gong, and Buddhist Meditation, the results it was reporting weren't statistically significant. I saw that you used Krisanaprakornkit 2010 to support the statement regarding researcher bias. Is there any chance you could take a look at that review? (I'm happy to email you the pdf, if need be.) I can't see how it supports that statement. Thanks! TimidGuy (talk) 14:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was relying on the abstract. Please revert me if you think I got it wrong. I was trying to simplify and streamline the section.

I'm a bit concerned by the disparity between the research summary at TM and the general impression given at the research article. I see from the latter's talk page that some editors claim the evidence has been found in all the good reviews to be too weak to call, whereas one (?) recent review claims the more recent studies are stronger, and another that the assessment protocols for earlier reviews were inappropriate.

I presently don't have journal access but would like to get to the bottom of this. Would you be able to email me the paywalled reviews that matter? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anthony. Did you get a chance to look at the Krisanaprakornkit 2010 review? Please let me know if you'd like me to send additional reviews. By the way, I think there are at least 5 sources that say Ospina/AHRQ 2007, which referred to meditation research as "poor," used an inappropriate method of assessing quality (an unmodified Jadad scale). TimidGuy (talk) 10:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I may be some time. I'm triaging my jobs. Presently I'm on Fibromyalgia, after that Sertraline and then, all being well, TM. I rate these things by how much harm misleading information can do, and TM as pretty benign. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. No hurry. TimidGuy (talk) 16:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Anthony, there's probably no point in your looking at the Anderson 2008 blood pressure meta-analysis that I emailed you. A report from the AHA released Monday likely supersedes it. The full report is available online.[1] Thanks again for your willingness to look at the sources. TimidGuy (talk) 10:49, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update and the link. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zoloft

[2]No, not you aren't annoying me. Your help is appreciated AmiLynch (talk) 00:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I'm re-reading The Emperor's New Drugs. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

76. IP at Causes of Autism

Should I simply be deleting their posts? It is, again, getting out of hand. Thanks for taking a look. Dbrodbeck (talk) 10:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hasn't that theory been addressed in an independent review yet? (I mean a review by someone other than the boosters of the theory.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The one I have read basically says it is early days, a recent review by Fox et al (2013) contains this quote 'What cannot be demonstrated in the human subjects is whether these antibodies cause autism. To marshal support in favor of this hypothe- sis, it is necessary to move to experimental animal studies". I tried pointing this out to our IP friend on the talk page (the bit I collapsed). THanks for any help. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there's no reason to think Fox is partial, could we summarise his review in Causes of autism? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem a little weak though. That said, I am pretty close to this stuff, and there are other weak theories on that page.... Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not close to it at all. From here, it doesn't seem inappropriate to summarise that review - even if it just says there's no serious evidence yet. What about asking Colin? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah Colin and/or Sandy would make sense. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you ask Sandy, you might just tempt her back to work :) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If only.... I have asked both of them, hopefully some good comes of this. Thanks for the advice BTW. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I got Dbrodbeck's message. I have that page watchlisted but have been trying to reduce my on-wiki stress levels. My favourite bit of policy is WP:WEIGHT and a primary source cannot by-definition establish its own weight. I find this an easier argument than pissing about with whether or not MEDRS banns primary research papers. Ideally, if one were writing Causes of autism one would take the latest reviews and books (book chapters) on this topic and use them to determine the weight we give to each theory. I don't think anyone has really done that here and the article is really just a list of various theories with a few actual known causes. Perhaps I'm wrong. But this weakens the case for being dogmatic about weight. We certainly want secondary sources, reliable publications and ideally we'd like some independence but that can be a luxury sometimes. A quick search turns up PMID 22911883 and PMID 22689191, both reviews share an author. I'm afraid I'm no autism expert and have no access to these full papers. As for judging journals and reviews, MastCell is your man. If you have access to them then I guess you could use them to write a short section on the topic. I see you quoting from one of them about human experiments -- remember this is true of all possible causes of autism.

The theory doesn't have to be a strong one for it to be included. There are plenty of discredited theories on that page. What matters is whether reliable sources mention the theory when discussing the topic. So perhaps all we say are the facts about the theory and the level of confidence there is in it so far. Sorry if this isn't much help or repeats what you already know. Colin°^Talk 19:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Share the cookies

Here's a plate full of cookies to share!

Hi Anthonyhcole/Archive5, here are some delicious cookies to help brighten your day! However, there are too many cookies here for one person to eat all at once, so please share these cookies with at least two other editors by copying {{subst:Sharethecookies}} to their talk pages. Enjoy! AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 15:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mr Strikeout! --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Thanks for your recent copy-edits to improve MMR vaccine controversy. Bearian (talk) 16:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Doing my bit for WP:NPOV. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources

What is your personal opinion about primary sources I proposed to remove from the article medical uses of silver? I'm writing to you because you have written previously that primary sources in your opinion have to be used very, very rarely. And here we have two of them in a row, both are considered of poor quality primary sources towards biomedical information :

quackwatch - characterized by arbcom as speculative, partisan, poor source. newspaper LA Times - well, just a newspaper. That specific article is just confuses by assumptions. Who exactly markets cs as all-cure? Most, if not all cs sellers either list certain conditions or provide an FDA disclaimer that no claims are made. However, lets leave it out of the scope of our discussion, and consider the merit of including the article on the basis that this is a primary source.

Both of the sources are used without adjunct secondary source. Kindly reply on my talk page. Ryanspir (talk) 01:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Hi Anthony, just to clear a few things up: Quackwatch and LA Times are both secondary sources as used in the Medical uses of silver article, historically Ryan has a low probability of correctly identifying when a source is primary or secondary. And, the view from ArbCom is not that Quackwatch is either "speculative" or a "poor source" as Ryan claims, read the final disposition on that yourself here. This has been explained to Ryan several times now but he still keeps repeating that. Quackwatch may be considered an "opinionated source" and we handle that on Wikipedia by attributing it to Quackwatch, exactly as we already do right now in the article. Zad68 04:14, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks. I'd never read that ArbCom case. I've responded to Ryan on his talk page. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

cs

If quackwatch is a secondary source, may i kindly suggest to take a look at the primary sources listed on the lyme's disease article with results of performed clinical trials that found cs not being effective for anything? I haven't seen such studies listed there. I'm accustomed to peer-reviewed secondary sources based upon peer-reviewed actual primary research. If you have a medical condition, you may consider to give cs a try. It may either result in a cure, some level of improvement, or no improvement. From my personal experience you may ingest like 250 ml a day and to give it at least a few days. Usually if it will work for your condition you shall feel improvement in 1-2 days. Ryanspir (talk) 17:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. These days I don't put anything but food and things that have very strong science behind them into my body. When I was younger I tried dozens of alternative remedies but gave up when I discovered morphine. I won't be following the medical uses of silver article now, and my advice (take it or leave it) is that you do the same. The science for cs is just too weak for now. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:23, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I initially wrote to you, I was merely asking your opinion regarding the use of primary sources as you have participated in a consensus. There is no connection to how efficient or not cs per scope of what I have posted to you. It was merely an issue of using the consensus. However Zad has said that that LA article is somehow a secondary source, so I'll post a question about it sto more experienced editors.

The science is not very strong, however there are 20+ scientific researchs that was done, including secondary sources on Pubmed, none of them and their findings are in the article. If you will read the archives of the talk page of the medical uses of silver, you will also see that currently Leeds Univ in UK is developing a drug against cancer based on cs and they have completed phase I with success.

Morphine is mostly used for pain, however the underlying causes of pain can be various. So it could be that using cs may benefit you. Morphine is also causes addiction and tolerance. You may consider taking DXM alongside morphine to address the tolerance. Ryanspir (talk) 16:13, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was a long time ago; I don't take any medication now. I spend most of my time sitting in comfortable chairs or lying down. Though it shrinks my horizons a bit it is better than pain or drugs (and widens my mental horizons significantly). I'll look into what you say about DXM and tolerance. I recently read some reviews on tramadol which seems to be the opioid-of-choice, in combination with paracetamol, for a number of conditions. Popular because it has reduced respiratory depression, tolerance and drowsiness. I wonder if DXM and tramadol share a mechanism. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:35, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tramadol is a semi-synthetic opiod. It's similar in action to morphine somewhat, but weaker. I take them occasionally for erectile issues, as it helps to make sex last longer, giving you better control over when you would like to ejaculate. I guess it has some potential for premature ejaculation, though it seems rather off-label use. DXM and tramadol are totally different, though they might share some mechanism theoretically. Ryanspir (talk) 18:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Phase I trial of colloidal silver preparations at Leeds. Ryanspir misread or misunderstood the contents of a press release; the full discussion is at Talk:Medical uses of silver/Archive 10#"Cancer research from the University of Leeds" is not relevant to Quackwatch and colloidal silver. It is not clear why he continues to misrepresent the Leeds research. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:27, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying that, Tent. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm saying is in the good faith. There is such research, its ongoing and it's successful. Perhaps I might theoretically could have misread or misunderstood something, but what would that be? Kindly point me. Ryanspir (talk) 18:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I realise you're acting in good faith. I really don't have time to do the necessary reading to satisfy myself about the evidence base for cs. I do have a longish list of commitments here that I'm very late with, so won't add to that. I also trust the judgment of the other editors you're dealing with on most matters, so am leaving the matter in their and your hands. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:30, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is a normal case of systematic bias WP:BIAS :). The other editors were conditioned by proclamations that cs is a quackery. As I have written, I was the same as them, so it's easy for me to understand them. The only difference is that I actually tried cs and after that my worldview regarding it has changed. It's my prudent guess, that if any of the editors would try it, its likely that they will change their opinion as well. Ryanspir (talk) 18:43, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

I don't know what's causing this, but it seems to be happening across the board. — TORTOISE WRATH 16:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Intriguing. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder controversies

Hi Anthony! I saw your comment "No comment whatever on the validity or relevance of the contribution." but maybe you would like to comment it anyway, here? Cheers! Lova Falk talk 10:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lova Falk. Agh! I'll take a look tomorrow. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@ Lova Falk. Well. I think that social science addition belongs somewhere in the article, but not in that form or in the lead. (It may already be there, I haven't read through the article yet.) I'll read through over the next few days and make some changes. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why does Wales get a free pass?

I'd like to know why Jimmy Wales gets to violate WP:BLP by saying that Kevin Morris is "not a real journalist", but when there is a thoughtful rebuttal to that, "poof!" away it must disappear. Should we modify BLP to say that it doesn't apply on Wikipedia User Talk pages? Or should we modify it to say that User:Jimbo Wales is exempt? - 2001:558:1400:10:3088:A564:CDBE:1D0 (talk) 14:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He's entitled to his view, and entitled to express it on his talk page. He's also entitled to a little less harassment. He's not perfect. I get it. Are you? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you disagree with "remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced". If I were a journalist, and someone called me "not a real journalist", without any source to document that claim, I would call that "contentious material". BLP applies to "adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page". Talk pages don't have a special exemption for "his view". Whatever, it will all come out to the wider public eventually. - 2001:558:1400:10:3088:A564:CDBE:1D0 (talk) 15:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So Jimbo insulted a journalist. At this point you should ask someone you trust, "Am I being a dick head?" --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. I didn't welch on two $5,000 gifts to two different people, two years in a row.^[1] More people probably consider that a dick head move than just calling the guy out on it. - 2001:558:1400:10:3088:A564:CDBE:1D0 (talk) 16:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I raise you a meh. He's imperfect. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Kevin Morris (26 April 2013). "Winners of Wikipedia's biggest award still haven't received prize money". Daily Dot. Retrieved 7 May 2013.

Duchenne muscular dystrophy

Your suggestion that I am edit warring to make a style change in this article is in bad faith. I have preserved the article contents, not changed anything.-gadfium 23:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a new addition by an editor who's never edited the article before and I, and another editor, don't like it. You will need to build consensus on the talk page if you want it to stick.[3] --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:20, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much for your kind words about my work on the article, Freedom for the Thought That We Hate

Thanks much for your kind words about my work on the article, Freedom for the Thought That We Hate. Most appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 14:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was clear, concise and touched all the important bases. You're very good at this. And thanks again for recommending the book, which I enjoyed very much. (I got the Audible.com spoken word version - not a bad reading.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure! Not sure which quality improvement project to focus on, next. Mulling over the core/vital article, Freedom of speech, but it's daunting to think about that one, heh. — Cirt (talk) 17:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do. If you remember, can you ping me when you're done? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on improving quality

You have my comment on my talk page on Meta :) --millosh (talk (meta:)) 21:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Protection Policy

You took part in a previous discussion on the protection policy talk page about the reference to "uncontroversial" edits. A survey is now in progress on that page in response to a request for comments. You may want to visit that talk page again and provide your input to try to obtain consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Anthonyhcole. You have new messages at MisterShiney's talk page.
Message added 10:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

MisterShiney ✉ 10:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Anthonyhcole. You have new messages at MisterShiney's talk page.
Message added 17:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

MisterShiney ✉ 17:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have a piece of cake

Hi, Anthony. Very sorry to hear you're not well. Have something sweet with your coffee, if appetite permits, or a rose if it doesn't. Bishonen | talk 06:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

You are a gem. (I loved that little thing of yours, by the way.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe. Glad you're well enough to remain optimistic. ;-) I was just trying to think of something about WP:ROPE for point 9. The use of WP:ROPE in a discussion means… I dunno, something nice. You know, not at all that they want to ambush somebody, or that they enjoy invoking violent metaphors. Hmmm. Not easy, this optimism. But I persevere. Bishonen | talk 06:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

A cup of tea for you!

Hi, Saw your post at MastCell talk. Small world eh? Have some tea mate, and get well soon! — Keithbob • Talk • 14:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Keithbob. I'm sipping your prescription right now. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Science Museum contacts

Hi Anthony

I replied to your message on Wikiproject:Medicine, replying here too, yes I can put you in contact with the people who made the videos, send me an email Wikimedian@nhm.ac.uk

Cheers

Mrjohncummings (talk) 20:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reminder John. I needed that. I'll reply in a day or two. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipediocracy

Thanks Anthony, I appreciate your comments. Prioryman (talk) 10:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may rail at them all you like, and with justification, as far as I'm concerned. But between the gratuitous cruel exaggerations and slanders and leaps bad faith, they perform, often too meanly and destructively, a function this project should be performing itself: review. While this project hasn't stomach to look itself in the mirror and no prospect of self-correction, while it is ~~controlled~~ unduly influenced by a self-selected vocal crowd of largely unsocialised basement-dwelling losers and sociopaths, we need them. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Though I would not use the same language, I agree with the sentiment expressed. WP is, in my opinion, largely controlled by a small, self-selected group of aggressive people. Many of whom are from the video game culture and who are motivated primarily by gamesmanship, control, and the thrill of destruction (whether it be the deletion of content, the destruction of a subject's reputation or the demise of a fellow editor) rather than the project's collaborative and utopian intentions of building a cost-free body of balanced knowledge.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:08, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

("Control" was too strong a word.) This place should be characterised by the most refined argument on the planet. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudonymity

I feel like the current discussion is more heat than light. I think it could stand from some clarification of goals and endpoints. I am going to ramble a bit here, and I hope it comes off as reasonably coherent, though it may not.

First, even though I have doubtless given enough subtle clues to my identity in my edit history, I am very protective of my pseudonymity. I'll give you an example of why.

A few weeks back I had a difficult interaction with an editor on a medical article that is contentious. This was a new editor and was not particularly cognizant of policy, and appeared to be misusing sources and doing OR. They expressed frustration even after I explained my rationale, and sent an email to me which further raised my suspicions that they might not be using sources in a manner consistent with our policies and practices.

They pretty clearly thought I was deliberately misrepresenting their words, and left in a huff. I felt like I was trying to work with them to help contribute to the article. They even characterized me, in a subtle way, as being uninterested in readers getting the best information. Now, as a student or junior person, what if this editor turned out to be one of my superiors, someone who had a way to retaliate for what was clearly a misunderstanding? How do you think that would change what I thought was the appropriate response? Would I be more deferential? What if they were clearly pushing an idea that was inconsistent with WP's values, or worse, unproven or harmful to a reader who took it seriously?

I think that there are definitely problems with WP. I know that all too well. But I don't think ending pseudonymity is the solution we're looking for. I do think we need to more carefully review editor behavior. I am wary of saying there are technical solutions, but there are complex tools for reviewing content; not so, as far as i can tell, for editor behavior.

There is also the norm of "what matters is the article, not how it's made." As someone involved with social justice movements, this seems deeply problematic to me. Yes, the article matters, but it's not all that matters. While acknowledging that WP is not the government, etc, I feel like the lack of emphasis on "procedural justice" helps to exacerbate the issues we're seeing here, in the effect it has on the culture of WP and the sort of people it attracts.

There is reluctance on the part of admins to take action in "content disputes" even though it seems like the definition of a "content dispute" would be one where all editors involved are willing to discuss and adhere to consensus; nearly all intractable disputes, in my view, are behavioral, and the editors most successful at disruption are the civil povpushers, as frequently acknowledged by others.

I guess my contention is that there are fundamental issues with power dynamics and authority off-wiki that pseudonymity, while not solving by any means, does help address. I want to find solutions that help to preserve that space, but I would be dismayed if it ceased to exist. Interested to hear your perspective, or feel free to direct me to other of your diffs if you have addressed this elsewhere. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 22:36, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well put. Let me think about this. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:49, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have also engaged John lilburne on his talk page here. While not directly related to the concerns I mentioned above, I do feel like they are worthy of consideration. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 00:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Improving Quality WMF board election question

Hi Anthony, sorry to misunderstand your question. I've now modified my answer to take your clarification into account - over at m:Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/Board_elections/2013/Questions/1#Improving_quality. Sincerely, Witty lama 11:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Survey question

You can certainly apply for support for a survey process if needed, in the form of a grant. You won't be able to get dedicated development time from staff, but could use part of a grant to support development. (Figuring out what parts of such a project can be supported with money and what parts can't is one of the challenges in taking that approach.) I would recommend talking to the folks on the wiki-research mailing list, which include a lot of statisticians, academics, and staff (both at WMF and other orgs that track collaboration). Your proposal - either to the community or for grant or other support - will be more compelling once you have a few good use cases, examples of what the first surveys using this toolchain might look like, and comparisons of these surveys with other reader surveys that have been done - such as the two done in 2011. (Survey, Results) – SJ + 18:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

re Does this interest you at all?

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/English_Wikipedia_readership_survey_2013 --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks interesting, I'll take a look at it soon, thanks for the notice, — Cirt (talk) 04:07, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Posterior root of spinal nerve may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Jimbo's

Anthonyhcole, if you want people banned for disrespect, perhaps start with Jimbo Wales. I treat him like he treats me (and others), with the minor difference that my treatment of him is based on facts, while his is spreading insults and innuendo to hide the fact that he usually doesn't have a shred of evidence to support his position. The will.i.am situation is one recent example, his problems at Commons (where his file uploads were correctly deleted despite his arguments from authority, and where his promised explanations and evidence are still lacking) are another. He wants to use his talk page as a kind of alternative general notice and discussion board, not as a personal talk page; but when this leads to criticism or hard-to-answer questions, it suddenly becomes his playground, where he can (try to) ban users and insult them as much as he likes. Leading by example? Anyway, I've restored the history of Frank Scalice, per the reasoning in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 29#Chicago Race Riot of 1919 (which rightly condemns the method used in this instance of mass deletion), and will check other articles from the same batch as well (and will not undelete fictitious or copyright violating ones of course) If there is evidence that, despite my checks, the undeleted history has copyright violations after all, I'll happily redelete those (or have no objections to anyone else doing this). But I wasn't able to find any discussion containing any evidence of actual copyright violations, only that that claim was made, in a general sense, by Nash (or his people), e.g. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-04-24/Jay Robert Nash. Fram (talk) 07:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's his talk page. He's told you not to post there. He's not perfect. Glaringly so, sometimes. That's no excuse for the way you address him. If he's been rude to you in the past, if that's what your attitude is about, fair enough, give it back. But when someone tells you to leave their talk page, do so.

On another matter, just about whenever I've encountered you on this project over the years, you've been railing at someone, often in a quite rude or ruthless way. Perhaps it's just chance, perhaps I've missed the 99% of the times when you're being collegial and supportive of others. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problematic interactions are obviously the ones with the highest visibility. The unproblematic and friendly interactions tend to stay more out of sight, on user talk pages, article talk pages, project talk pages... As for "it's his talk page", that doesn't apply in general, and certainly not in his case, where he wants his page to be a general notification board (and has claimed it to be exempt from the canvassing policy and so on for that reason). Plus, I'll not let me be silenced by an editor who misuses his authority and tools on a regular basis. Checks and balances should apply, not some roi-soleil who is above criticism. Fram (talk) 09:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fram, we disagree. Whatever. So, remind me what the will.i.am issue was. I vaguely recall Jimbo did something on the say-so of the subject and it turned out he was wrong. Is that right? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That wouldn't have been a serious problem in itself, it's his behaviour in that episode that is very problematic. User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 116#Seriously, Jimbo? Come on, Talk:will.i.am#Correction of naming error and Talk:will.i.am#How did we get to this point? (middle name situation) are the places to be. E.g. his claim that I am "inserting falsehoods into BLPs"[4], when I was the one looking for sources while he felt that his say-so was sufficient; eventually everyone but Jimbo Wales agreed that my edit had no falsehood in it at all, but even moths later, he stated (at talk:will.i.am) "What? I've been right all along and I'm still right now. You are making up a "consensus" when none exists. No one agrees with your extreme and nonsensical position, in conflict with both reliable sources and the subject, as far as I can tell.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC) " This may have been explained (not excused) by being blinded by some antipathy towards me, but he made rather bizarre statements there in a general way as well; "I think we can uncontroversially note that the sources are wrong. A failure to do so would be incomplete.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC) " is not a statement you expect after his change has caused, well, controversy, and goes again everything Wikipedia stands for. That whole discussion is typical: no matter how much effort you ut into finding sources, he ignores it all and maintains his position; and if he finally is in a losing position, he waits a few months, and tries it again, as if nothing has happened. The problem is not that he makes mistakes, but that he refuses to acknowledge his errors but abuses those reporting them instead. Fram (talk) 09:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Inserting falsehoods" was a bit hyperbolic. Suggesting that "we can uncontroversially state that the sources are wrong" was wrong. "It sounds like you only want to accept sources that give your preferred answer" was pretty uncalled-for. Your "And perhaps because your high-and-mighty approach rather backfired?" was uncalled-for. And "Do we really have no more urgent problems with Wikipedia/Wikimedia than the established middle name of one BLP subject? I believe people are still waiting for your RfA proposals, a solution for the Turkish Wikipedia, a resolution for the AfT, some follow-up for Pending Changes ..." was somewhat ad hom. (You forgot Kazakhstan and the image filter.) His "...your extreme and nonsensical position..." was inaccurate: your position was a pretty standard one here, and it made a kind of sense, if you leave any concern for our subjects out of the equation.

I think he had every right to say, "Will says we've got his name wrong and it's upsetting his mum." And I think the right response to that is to immediately drop the middle name and the Jr. while we sort it out. That's what Jayen466 meant by "This is a BLP issue": it was causing distress to the subject. Your response was to bring two new sources to the table (neither of which cited their source), restore the long name and say, "What a person tells about himself is not always the truth, and we have no way of checking it."

The compassionate response, the BLP response, is to stick with the short name while we sort it out. As JN466 pointed out in that discussion, sources get those kinds of details wrong all the time. You're a bright person, so you know that. Yet you threw the long name straight back in there with a couple of reports of unknown provenance to back it up. That's being unkind to our subject. If this is how you treat our BLP subjects normally, you might want to look at yourself in this regard.

Again, if you're not welcome on someone's talk page, don't go there. Really. It's just incredibly bad manners. If there's no actual wikirule that says you're not allowed to, listen to your heart. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your analysis. Note that we only have Jimbo's word for will.i.am's statements and the feelings of his mom, and that Jimbo made, in all of that long discussion, not a single effort to find a source to support his point of view or contradict other people's views. His position is simply "I say so, so you should listen and do as I want you to do". Due to multiple older incidents, I no longer trust his word for anything. Take e.g. my latest post on his talk page, [5], of course again removed without a reply (which has been questioned by another user already); he deletes pages created by an established editor as "copyvio", despite them not being a copyvio at all, and doesn't even drop a note on that editor's talk page. This kind of thing is all too common. Of course he doesn't welcome people pointing out his (many) errors or his lack of follow-up to the (many) promises he made, but considering his role, his powers, and his non standard use of his talk page, his wishes are noted but ignored as not having a positive result for Wikipedia and its workings. Fram (talk) 09:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fatigue in Cancer

I see that Fatigue in Cancer is on your missing articles list. Is this diferent from Cancer-related fatigue? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Thanks for pointing that out. Do you mind if I have a crack at expanding that? --Anthonyhcole (talk contribs · email) 00:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be perfectly happy with that. Good luck, and if you want to complain about the sources' unvalidated assumption that findings about cancer-related fatigue in postmenopausal white women with breast cancer apply to children and men and even to women with completely different cancers (I'd think that some of the side effects of treating lung cancer might leave you pretty tired), then you know where to find me.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It'll be a while before I look at it. I picked up a second-hand textbook on the subject at the library a few months back, so just added it to my list. I'm still grinding through cancer pain, but I'll make a point of complaining about everything I possibly can when I do get there. :) Thanks for that and that, by the way. ... and everything else you do around here. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unexpected change in the lead of Muhammad

Hi Anthonyhcole, you repeatedly changed a lead sentence in this article as "people who identify as Muslims" which is undesirable. Please note that the present version was created by a talk-page consensus, and this is a sensitive issue. Much debate and discussion has been done in the previous days over this. Please refrain from such edits in future. --AsceticRosé 17:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[6]

Talkback

Hello, Anthonyhcole. You have new messages at Faizan's talk page.
Message added 17:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Fai zan 17:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties

If you enjoyed Freedom for the Thought That We Hate, hopefully you might also like Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties.

The book is quite a fascinating read.

I hope you're doing well, — Cirt (talk) 07:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good read. Thanks. I've left a comment on the talk page. I forgot to ask there, did you not link to the CNN items in the references for a reason? (Newyorkbrad's In re Snyder is worth a look, if you haven't already.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I'll link those now. I'll take a look at that article as well, thank you! — Cirt (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done, added that quote from CNN, does it look a bit better now? — Cirt (talk) 17:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Looks good to me. I've ordered the book. :) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, great, you'll have to tell me what you think of it. — Cirt (talk) 04:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you have something to say

Tell me to my face. I think its rather rude, and bullshit, what you said. If you think I'm violating WP policy and acting in a sexist fashion, prove it and drag me before ANI. Otherwise, cut out the off-wiki attacks. Thanks.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair comment. I should have notified you. I think your approach to categorisation and naming of articles is sexist. I realise you don't think so. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well now you've said it to me. Now, can you prove it? For example, let's take Sarah Brown - show me something I said that is sexist, e.g. that discriminates against someone based on their sex. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You support naming her article Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown). Defining women by whom they marry is sexist. I know you don't think so. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so allow me to convince you otherwise. If you read my posts, I've also proposed another disambiguator, supported by reliable sources and fulfilling WP:COMMONNAME that has nothing to do with her husband (Sarah Brown (women's advocate)). Is that sexist? Secondly, you say "Defining women by whom they marry is sexist". What about "defining men by who they marry"? Is that sexist also? We have a whole category tree called Category:Spouses of national leaders - is that category tree sexist? Putting someone in a category is the very definition of DEFINING them, in fact, we have a whole guideline called WP:DEFINING, which means, someone can go in a category when they are DEFINED by that category. When the BBC says "Sarah Brown, wife of Gordon Brown, today spoke...", is that sexist? I'm sorry, you're going to have to do better than that anthonyhcole. Sexism is not just using the word "wife of". Sexism means DISCRIMINATING AGAINST SOMEBODY BECAUSE OF THEIR GENDER. Demonstrate that, and you've won. If not, drop it. I've already provided evidence that Dennis Thatcher was treated in much the same way by the press. Perhaps you could call it "spousist", but sexist simply doesn't work, no matter how much it bugs you.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. I agree with Tarc on this, and was simply using you as an example of being something and not knowing it. I think your behaviour in categorisation and naming is sexist. You don't. It's not the end of the world. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever... 5 previous RMs ended up with that article in the same place, but I don't see you calling TimRollPickering sexist, or any other editors who voted for that same title for that matter. Finally, you don't have any EVIDENCE to back up your claims. If I'm really sexist, then help me be not sexist, by providing me a diff where I do or say something sexist. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke - being evasive, not answering my valid questions, and admitting that you're not even willing to change your mind about my alleged crime of sexism - whereas I am open to it. I have for example stated clearly that if a husband of a PM was in the same situation, I would !vote for "Bill Smith (husband of Julie Smith)" or whatever.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned you by way of example, making the point that, though a person may not profess holding a view (or even hold it), their behaviour may yet reasonably be described as furthering that view. I mentioned you because Tarc had mentioned you in that context. I was not opening the door for a critique of the behaviour of all the voters in that RfC, or a tutorial on inadvertent insult. I know you're well-meaning. We disagree on the consequences of your editorial choices. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

well it's rude to make an example out of me then refuse to provide diffs. If my sexism is simply supporting a consensus position that dozens of other editors have voted for and a title formulation that exists in 80 other articles, not to mention hundreds of news articles about her and the preface of her own book, then that's a pretty weak example. The fact that you don't wanna answer my questions makes you a paper tiger and rather weasely at that. i suggest you do the honorable thing, withdraw your comments, and pick on someone where u can actually build a case. You mentioned something about categorization - did you know I developed an algorithm for deghettoization by gender, that I'm working with a developer to create category intersection which would solve the gender ghettoization problem, and that I personally deghettoized at least 100 bios of women, if not more? What have you done to combat gender bias in Wikipedia mr white horse? Sexism is a problem here, and elsewhere, but your bullshit accusations that you refuse to back-up with diffs just trivialize real sexism, like the guys who deface women's pages, or discriminatory hiring practices, or the glass ceiling, or any number of real things that you could find in the world. But instead, you aim at me, who has a mother, a wife, sisters, and daughters, and then say "oh I was only using you as an example, I'm not willing to actually talk about it in detail, or am open to changing my mind, I know you didn't 'mean' to be sexist, but I hereby declare that you are anyway because you voted one way in an RM." I deserve better than that. Please withdraw your comments here and there, or I will seek admin intervention for violation of WP:NPA.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that about your categorisation efforts. Well done. Thank you. I withdraw any suggestion that your behaviour regarding categorisation is sexist. I can't do that with regard to someone defending the naming of Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown), though. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is what you said: "User:Obi-Wan-Kenobi is clearly being sexist in his dealings with women subjects without seeming to realise it". Why don't you try to defend that here instead of evading in a weaselly fashion. Which "women subjects" are you talking about? Or are you *just* talking about a single RM, where we disagree on the appropriate name? You need to defend your accusations, or drop them. Calling me a sexist is a serious accusation, and I take it seriously, and I'm offended that you won't drop the stick. What EXACTLY is sexist - show me a DIFF. If I said "Well, we should only classify women by their husbands, but not do the same to the men", that would be sexist. But saying "We should follow WP:COMMONNAME in titling articles, and use the disambiguator most likely to make sense to the reader based on her main source of notability - basically applying the same arguments I would apply in any RM, and that dozens of editors and broad consensus has found in the 5 previous RMs, how the fuck is that discriminating against her based on her gender, when I'd do the SAME THING for a man? Even User:Jayen466 listed "Prime minister's spouse" as an option. Is he sexist? Either bring forth some evidence so I can correct my behavior, or DROP THE FUCKING STICK.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was including all American Women writers and Sarah Brown in that. Now you tell me that you have corrected the situation you were initially defending in the categorisation of women writers, so I can say your behaviour towards women writers is not sexist. It is my view that naming the article Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) is sexist. It clashes against decades of women prising themselves away from being defined in terms of who they're married to. You're right, it's how she's commonly identified, but for us to define her as such, in the title of her biography, demeans her. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For being judgmental, continuously dodging fair questions, not reading diffs, making vague generalizations, making off-wiki personal attacks, and general arrogance. Get off your high horse, and stop talking about people behind their back, and go read a book about what sexism really is.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[7]]

Hillary Rodham Clinton

I read through the RM close yesterday and support it. Honestly, it is about time (WP:YOGURT as far as I am concerned).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm trying to assess the close, though - not the merits of either option. When you said, "I think the historical reasons and BLP user preferences still carry," were you referring to the article subject's preference?" Cheers. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to your comment there. IAR wasn't invoked, as far as I recall, appeal was made to WP:OFFICIALNAME - when you appeal to an existing guidance, you're not really IAR (also, I have a higher standard for IAR arguments - IAR still is a policy, and it clearly states that you must believe it will improve the encyclopedia. It was not argued why either Hillary Clinton or Hillary Rodham Clinton would harm the encyclopedia or make it worse or better. IAR in the Sarah Brown case is stronger, and was explicitly invoked there, since it's basically saying "Well, even though all reliable sources refer to her in this way, the end result isn't good overall, so we should IAR."--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Tony, please share your thoughts a the move review. I welcome further input and analysis into this close. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer to keep this discussion in one place. Would you (or do you mind if I) copy and paste your above into the review discussion? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep the discussion there then, that's fine. Dont copy/paste though, allow me to respond to that discussion there. Thanks.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copy away. I will come visit there.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented enough over there but wanted to respond to your points:

IAR - I'm not convinced they were making an IAR argument - rather they appealed to officialname, which is an essay. They were also making what humanbeing called commonsense arguments, like 'she asked to be called this'. Those are fine, and I would have no problem with them in general, and they would have swayed if on policy it could not be decided. For another example, I noted that WP:OSE arguments can be strong (even if derided) as they indicate consensus elsewhere in the wiki. But in this particular case, as opposed to Sarah Brown (which is btw completely different), me saying "many oppose argued on the basis of things not covered in current policy, rather on softer issues. thus per IAR I balance their arguments against the support" would have been improper. If a closer can invoke IAR even if participants dont, then why not invoke it every time? "Well, A argued based on policy points a,b,c while B argued based on not-covered -in-policy points D,E,F. Thus per IAR I find no consensus. "
It is not the closers job to set a new precedent, and having read the consensus and closing instructions many times, I can tell you that adherence to policy is a biggie - it's mentioned again and again. Yes I know IAR is a policy, but it's a big, dangerous one, and when I've seen it invoked it is backed up by a strong argument that blindly following the rules will lead us into a messy situation. But in this case, blindly following the rules leads us to name the article the same thing that is written in her homepage, so it's hard for me to understand how it will dis-improve the encyclopedia to do this rename - on balance it's quite even in the eyes of the outside world and our readers, and it you look at search trends, our readers search for HC much more frequently than they search for HRC. If we take a hypothetical, where she was always referred to as 'Hillary the terrible" in reliable sources, then IAR could be used to say stuff reliable sources, the result for Wikipedia sucks, so we'll find a better name. But that is patently not the case here, and more importantly, no-one made the argument that "Hillary Clinton" is somehow a bad title - they just made the argument that HRC was better for (mostly) off-policy reasons.
IAR has been invoked at Sarah Brown, and there may be a case for that, but personally I think it's weak as we haven't established that the outside world considers such a title to be sexist, and outside world usage almost always defines her in exactly that way in the first three words of an intro. We could for example use IAR and name her Sarah Brown, saying basically, stuff primary topic rules. If enough people latch onto that argument, the closer may find for that - even given that the actress gets twice as many hits.
In any case, you asked about possible COI. I haven't counted participants, nor did I study overlap between the two discussions, but I think the overlap is actually minimal in terms of active participation. Secondly, I reject that this was a COI - the issues at play are completely different. Sarah brown is effectively about disambiguation, and the argument centers on what is an appropriate disambiguator. HC has nothing to do with that, as both are equally clear. Sarah Brown, because we need a disambiguator, and (unfortunately), her middle name is completely unknown and un-used, is becomes about what defines her most quickly and easily to the reader, while Hillary Clinton is about which title best fits within policy, both being equally non-offensive to everybody and needing no disambiguation. If there were hundreds or even dozens of hits for Sarah Jane Brown (even compared to millions for Sarah Brown, wife of), I would probably support Sarah Jane Brown - but tragically, there are literally NO sources anywhere I've found that call her this - it is completely and totally unknown - so we can't use the middle name (if we are hoping to do what's best/easiest for readers, that is). In short, the key points are different, the bulk of the discussants are different, and the only conflict I could imagine is that closing for HC would somehow have boosted or reinforced my arguments at SB, but that is patently not the case - for example, concise and precise can both be used to argue for Sarah Jane Brown, both precise enough for wiki and more concise than wife-of; concise/precise can also be used to argue for Sarah brown born 1963. Thus, the same policies I studied on this close could be used against me in the other argument, therefore I categorically reject the coi suggestions. You need to assume good faith, and just because someone is involved in a convo with some people about a woman doesn't mean he cannot close another discussion of a completely different nature about another woman. If overlap in a few discussants was reason to not close, no CFD would ever close, as they often have the same group of regulars; same applies with some RMs.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May I move this to the review page? I'm completely shameless about big, long detailed discussions, provided they're on topic, which this very much is. We can jointly tell them to bugger off if anyone complains. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'd rather not, but thanks for asking kindly. I've literally been bludgeoned over there, so I'm basically done - it's hard to fight a multi-front discussion, and I feel a bit ganged-up-upon. I really was just trying to do a diligent close, and I'm terribly sorry this has caused so much strife, it's really just a single word, and real-world-usage is broadly split so either way seems reasonable, I'm really not quite sure why people are so fired up about this. Happy to discuss here, as you make very good points and I appreciate your thoughtful and logical arguments, which force me to think hard and well - I always appreciate that.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a shame. I would like to address your points above, but think the right venue for that is the review. I have a tendency, at times, to address every misguided comment in a discussion, and just ignore people when they accuse me of badgering. We're here to argue, have our minds changed and change the minds of others. Provided debate is civil and orderly, it's a mistake to arbitrarily shut it down, in my opinion.

So much of the verbiage here is not actually argument, though, in the sense of respectful, formal, on-point debate, and so many people here don't know it when they see it. You don't make a bad fist of it. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Its been difficult, as I've been repeatedly accused of bad faith and supervoting and conflict of interest and sexism/misogyny (check Tarc's comment), as well as had people like you and Humanbeing thoughtfully prod at substantive points, but then I get beat up when I attempt to respond to it. Yes I am verbose, I will grant you all that in 72-point font, I do need to learn to be more precise myself, and I am sorry that I repeat myself sometimes. :( Anyway, people know to come here, so you can respond here, and if we come to a conclusion together, we can post the summary back over there. I think your points on IAR are good, and I concede that I should have considered IAR even more than I did during my closing deliberations.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather not, if you don't mind. But I fully understand and respect your wish not to continue it there. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jmh649 evidence

the evidence you feel should be scrutinized has been posted. PumpkinSky talk 11:35, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"shouldn't be allowed to communicate with other editors" but a useful patroller?

C'mon, say what you really mean! I must say, I've never been quite so harshly praised with ~~faint~~ damns. I think of myself as trying to clear the moneychangers out of the Temple, a process in preparation for which my gentle Lord made himself a whip of cords. I am not, by the way, ignoring your stated perception of the way in which I handle myself here; self-inspection is always a good idea. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[8]

I don't really mean that first bit. I apoligise for my hyperbole. Oh dear. I do say some awful things at times. But I'm delighted by your charming response. Feel free to hold up a mirror to me any time you think I need it. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Memento

Per this AN thread

Nicer diff links

Hi Anthony,

Just thought I'd drop you a note to say that instead of having to use URLs to link to diffs like this, you can use {{diff}}, like this. That avoids having the result appear as an external link, and looks nicer in the source too. It's a pretty handy template.

Best, — Scott • talk 12:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks . I've seen that around but never used it. If I'm trying to be neat, I sometimes use

{{plainlink|url=http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anthonyhcole&diff=562828490&oldid=562520068|name=this}}

which looks like this. But I'm not usually that caring.

You don't know how to open a page history that only shows diffs from one selected timestamp to another, do you? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:29, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adding link

No problem at all. The only reason I didnt link in the first place was that I thought since it had been fairly well spammed across noticeboards, everyone would probably know what I was referring to. Plus I am lazy ;) Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:32, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I haven't done my daily trawl through the noticeboards. Cheers. I thought your contribution was excellent. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding me unblocking Pudeo. The thread is Bwilkins' response to my unblock of Pudeo. Thank you. -- tariqabjotu 22:40, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be offline for 8 hours. I think I've made my thoughts pretty clear on B's talk page. Feel free to link to it if you think it's relevant. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The note is not necessarily a request for you to comment; it's just a notification that you were mentioned. I imagine the notification system already alerted you to that, but this is still required by the ANI instructions. -- tariqabjotu 23:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:14, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :)

That was so nice! Hildabast (talk) 18:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously

(Following a discussion with BWilkins on his talk page^[1] which moved to ANI^[2]^[3])

Anthony, I really didn't think you were that low. Taking a situation 100% out of context, and trying to somehow make it match up with something so unrelated, AND where the situation doesn't even have similarities? After your apology yesterday, I actually began respecting you again ... now you pull this one? Seriously? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My apology was for my tone. As I said in that comment, there is a problem with the way you deal with editors. If you're concerned that this case should be separated from the one involving Tariq, I'll move it to a new section. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on ANI, talk to me directly about the case ... I'll explain. Throwing that into ANI was just ... bizarre (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I think this editor should be unblocked. He recognises that he may not use Wikipedia for advertising or promotion, which is the reason he was blocked. So, would you please do that, or explain why not? And would you please explain your disrespectful treatment of the editor?

Accusing an editor of sockpuppetry to avoid a block when they just edited their talk page logged out, calling him a jerk, not unblocking when he acknowledged several times that he now knows Wikipedia does not permit advertising or marketing, blocking talk page access because the person asks good-faith questions, describing yourself as one of the most patient admins on Wikipedia, implying the person is insane, saying you used "fricking" because you're too polite to use the other word ... is this your usual standard?

19:55, 8 July 2013, Adamsalti (talk · contribs) creates a new account and creates an article advertising his business (I think - I can't see any history of him making more than one article-space edit (to Psychic Today) but there is mention of him creating an article about himself).
05:52, 9 July 2013, Jimfbleak (talk · contribs) blocks Adamsalti "(account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ({{uw-spamublock}})"
05:52, 9 July 2013, Jimfbleak templates Adamsalti's talk page

The rest of the episode is on User talk:Adamsalti.
--Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You'll quite likely want to read the entire exchange, including his deletions, blankings, etc again. I believe, considering his belligerant actions before I even became involved, that I was extremely patient with him. Yes, I reduced myself to his level as his goal was to attack others in his unblock requests, so I used "polite" but similar language to his to try and communicate in his language. Do not accuse me of calling him a jerk when I most clearly discussed his edits. He also quite clearly does not understand that any of his attacks, insults, or behaviours were incorrect - and indeed became more belligerant when I pointed them out. I remained as polite as I could while still speaking a "more polite version" of his language (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I read the entire exchange. I looked at every diff in the talk page history and every diff in the user's contributions history. He blanked the page once and left it when you restored it and explained the block info has to stay. Everything else he said of any significance is still on the page. The new editor was not belligerent, he was understandably annoyed, but very restrained, under the circumstances.

Can you please unblock him, since he has made it quite clear he understands Wikipedia is not to be used for promotion or advertising? I would be very happy to work with him if he needs any help or advice in editing within our norms. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of your talkpage stalkers seems to have done a pretty good job a reviewing it the same way I did. I was the third decliner - nothing there was remotely GAB-compliant, not is there at this point. He began insulting me immediately after my unblock decline (although he had been abusing other admins before I arrived), yet I continued to try and give him assistance to become unblocked - I did, of course, note to him that I would NOT be able to action his "next" unblock request, and he quickly became more belligerent. I cannot fathom how you can consider anything on his talkpage to be remotely WP:GAB-compliant when taken as a whole. Yes - you know as well as I do that a) we do not accept unblock anonymously-placed requests - they must be logged in to do so, and b) editing anonymously while your primary account is blocked is most definitely a violation of WP:EVADE/WP:SOCK - that's not even debatable. I cannot personally cannot unblock him until something GAB-compliant exists, and as his talkpage was locked, he has been given access to UTRS (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll address the points you make above when I have a little more time. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's important to note that Adamsalti made two further requests for unblock via UTRS that were still not GAB compliant and were declined. One admin even offered to assist them through the 2nd chance process and Adamsalti outright refused. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 16:33, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for filling me in on that. Bwilkins asked me to deal directly with him on this issue, and I would appreciate it if you could leave this thread to the two of us. I'm more than happy to engage with you in another thread if there's anything else you want to bring up with me, here or on another page, but I'd like to be able to have a one-on-one in this thread, if that's OK with you, JP. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No ... Ponyo's addition was actually key to this discussion. Now, the discussion is certainly over. Don't worry Anthony - I don't hold grudges, so I'm sure that someday I'll respect you again. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Ponyo's contribution was important. Ponyo is welcome to start a thread just below this one. You wanted to discuss this with me "directly" so I was creating a space where we could have an uninterrupted dialog. Did you get me to move this off ANI so you could quietly walk away? I'm going out now. When I'm up to it, I'll address your misleading, specious comments above. If you choose not to address them, I'll take this further. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I apologise for having to write here as anon but I feel that I need to write, I am the aforementioned adam salti. I am left no choice as my IP and User were blocked. I have a right to add details to the matter. All I want to say is quoting me wiki policy pages when I am new isn't helpful. I believed the only way to flag and admin was unblock request template. I had an issue with the way it was handled and the way it is still being handled.

I am not belligerent (hostile and aggressive) my tone may be annoyed, yet, I refrained from name calling. I asked for information and got it with abuse. I do not ask for a sympathetic unblock either. If I was even given a chance to explain before the door was slammed in my face I might have done better. From sockpuppet, jerk, beligernet... I have been patient. Please remove the block.

I also don't know where to write this but the Psychic Today edits were actually relevant and I have a lot more to add. Finally I created another user and haven't yet been harassed by wilkins. Yes I know sockpuppet. Yes I know fraud. Still I have something to contribute and I will persevere! 82.132.229.130 (talk) 20:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your Honour, I rest my case (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adam, you have been treated like shit here, and for that I'm very sorry. The effect they've had on you - driving you underground - is perfectly predictable, of course ... they do it all the time.

They see someone like you, who edits transparently under your own name, in an area where you have a conflict of interest, and rather than work with you, they do this. Then they slap each other on the back telling each other what a great job they're doing keeping Wikipedia safe, while you carry on editing under a pseudonym.

Would you be kind enough to send me copies of the correspondence you've had with the "UTRS" people? I'd be very interested to review that. It's clear to me you are willing to respect our policies, and so I'm sure we'll be able to get you unblocked in time, but I'd like to see what happened in the email exchanges before we start.

Of course, it's less trouble for you to just continue as you're doing and edit under a pseudonym, and no one with any sense would blame you if that's what you decide to do. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come off it Anthony. You know full well that I take no joy in seeing anyone blocked - it's against my philosophy of this project. Encouraging someone to break the rules? That's what you've lowered yourself to now? I guess if you hadn't wrongfully convinced someone that they had been abused or at all treated poorly, then they would have probably seen the light and actually appropriately requested unblocking. Congratulations (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am compiling an email. Wilkins, please stop this attitude of yours it's rather unkind. Wikipedia is crowd sourcing encyclopaedia not for playground fisticuffs. My last message here. 82.132.224.159 (talk) 23:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'm sick and busy at the moment so take your time, it may be a day or so before I get back to you. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Noel Lee

Thanks! It should be easy for me to de-orphan his page by linking to it on the Monster Cable Products page and I'd be happy to add some categories as a non-controversial edit, unless you think I should use Request Edit, as well as keep prodding Monster for images with copyright permissions. I'm expecting some of the typical BLP riff raff like this to find its way there eventually, so I'll flag that when/if it comes up.

I mentioned on Talk that "(manufacturer)" wasn't quite right. Businessman, Monster CEO, CEO, or if we wanted to be cute "Head Monster" ;-) (or whatever) might be more on-target. CorporateM (Talk) 13:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh, or "(Executive)", I think that's what we usually use. CorporateM (Talk) 13:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I forgot about de-orphanning. I've moved to Noel Lee (executive) and linked to that from Monster Cable Products, but if you'd prefer demigod or other, let me know and I'll do the move. As for that, what can you do? It's a wiki. Ping me if you need help with anything. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes, demi-god would work quite nicely. ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 13:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you'll need to double my commission for that move. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:54, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now you sound like User:Drmies ;-)

Sounds like I need to have a quiet word with Mr D. :{ --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey now. I'm still waiting on my cut for Mathijs Bouman--cheap-ass Dutch calvinist. Drmies (talk) 18:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mate, there's enough here for everyone. We just need to, you know, keep in touch. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm waiting for a huge check for History of public relations. That article has drained me, but then, I don't think it does anyone any favors, except maybe the wire services for this little social plug. CorporateM (Talk) 18:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someone from Monster just sent me a PDF with a bunch of copyedits like "expires" -> "expired" and "Monster Cable Products" -> "Monster" (they shortened their name a while back). I'm gonna go ahead and put those in as non-controversial edits with detailed edit summaries. However, if I do go beyond a non-controversial edit, I encourage trout-slapping. CorporateM (Talk) 18:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. You can ping me when you're done, if you want. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Diff Mostly just correcting grammar, run-ons, tense etc. There were a couple edits in the pdf that would have added slightly promotional language, which I skipped. This comes to mind as something that isn't quite just a clerical edit. It's a huge burden to ask volunteers to correct every period and whatnot, so I'll usually just fix such things. CorporateM (Talk) 18:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've got no issues with any of that. It's a pleasure doing business with you.

--Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) CorporateM, I congratulate you on creating a text as neutral as that with such promotional sources. (I know that's the way the journals write: always with the congratulatory tone.) But about the iffy diff: I think the whole bit after "cable" is iffy, not just the consumers. Unfortunately I can't check how exactly the source puts it, because the pdf in footnote 12 is broken. (Unless it breaks when I download it.) I've edited it, anyway. Feel free to improve. Bishonen | talk 19:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]

The original was more true to the source, but I think your edit is still better. The sources that talk about Lee all focus on his successfully persuading the market that the cables made a difference in the sound, but I happen to know that not everyone was convinced. I had expressed some concern about this bias to User:North8000 but wasn't sure how to correct it. That little tweek is perfect and I would consider it an acceptable stray from the source as common sense and IAR. As you pointed out, the press that we use as source material doesn't necessarily share Wikipedia's editorial mission, so we have to use good judgement to make sure we are more neutral than the sources. CorporateM (Talk) 20:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Thanks. Uh, can you see what's wrong with the pdf, and maybe fix it? It's beyond my skill. Bishonen | talk 20:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]

The PDF works for me; just takes a really long time to download. It's only 400KBs, so I presume it's a problem on their side. I can email it to you if you like. CorporateM (Talk) 21:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to me, several times, was it arrived as two pdfs, one empty and one corrupt. No, it can't have been the size, and it didn't take long at all. Anyway, I just tried again and this time it worked. :-) Computers aren't the logical machines they're cracked up to be; they're ruled by capricious, testy little men who live inside them and do all the work. My mac is, at least. Bishonen | talk 23:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]

I'm a mac user as well. Now if only I could find a mac that doesn't overheat when playing World of Warcraft I would be a happy camper. Until then, I'll somewhat begrudgingly continue buying macs because I have lost touch with my skills at constant Windows maintenance. But now I've really hijacked Anthony's page, so I should scurry off. You can also follow me to the actual Monster page here if you want. Despite what *some* editors think, I don't pay commission, but I do offer myself as a punching bag to COI critics by disclosing all over the place. I've heard it makes for good sport. :-D CorporateM (Talk) 01:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK-Good Article Request for Comment

Did you know ... that since you expressed an opinion on the GA/DYK proposal last year, we invite you to contribute to a formal Request for Comment on the matter? Please see the proposal on its subpage here, or on the main DYK talk page. To add the discussion to your watchlist, click this link. Regards, Gilderien Chat|What I've done22:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, would you like to elaborate on your !vote? :) --Gilderien Chat|What I've done 23:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I might add to the discussion later. I can't imagine what the oppose rationales will be. Is it a tribal thing between GA/FA and DYK? (You don't have to answer that, given your role in this.) Thanks very much for persevering. It would be nice for the GA people to get their moment in the sun too. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! Those GA people, let em stew in their own juices. If they can't bring something up to FA, that's their problem. Bwuhaha! Drmies (talk) 18:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This callous attitude toward content-creators by Machiavellian power-players such as yourself, Mr Demise, is at the heart of the corruption here. (I'm sure we can still work out something on that "other" matter, though.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's Mrs. Demise, of course. Seriously, I'm somewhat torn about the proposal, indicated by the fact that I can't remember if I initially endorsed it or shouted it down. On the one hand it's a bit easy for GA writers to rack up another totem with the same article, and it's all-too enticing for DYK reviewers to basically say "

per GA review". (There's enough problems already in the DYK reviews and, pace Eric Corbett, in GA reviews also, though arguably there's fewer problems.) On the other, sure, GA writers need some recognition as well. (I play both fields.) And I would support the separate mention of new GAs in the FA box, but that begs the question of selection (and how many?), and the front page is indeed a bit cluttered already (as Eric pointed out). Drmies (talk) 19:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't bear any of it actually, Ma'am. This is my preferred option for the main page. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nihilist! What will the sponsors say?? Drmies (talk) 20:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see you called one section "General discussion" and the other "General Discussion" so I didn't really need to do that rename. Oh well. Carry on. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:46, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

My comment at ANI wasn't at all meant as a criticism of you. In fact, quite the opposite. My meaning was to compliment you for actually being the only one to provide some actual context. I'm sorry if I was unclear in making it though; I think my follow up will make that clear. Shadowjams (talk) 06:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all, Shadowjams. I didn't read it negatively. It's hard to judge tone sometimes in text. I can see TheShadoeCrow is deeply pissed off. And it worries me when an editor is in that state and an admin can't handle it. Perhaps TheShadowCrow is an ass. I don't know. But I just don't think it's ever appropriate for an admin to address an angry, aggrieved editor in those terms. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page linking from Megacephalic

I changed my name a few weeks ago, I thought I had done all of the required work to link everything. Apparently, I did not. So thank you for letting me know! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caitlin.swartz (talk • contribs) 01:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. You can keep it black by using <font color = black>Megacephalic</font> I think. (That will make your sig' disappear for users who work with white/blue text on a black background. Yes, people do that - but not many.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to go back to my old user name. I believe that the problem is fixed. Is it? Caitlin.swartz (talk) 01:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it appears that my talk link is back. Though, I am still unclear as to how to permanently add contrib and email.Would you mind helping me out? Thank you. Caitlin.swartz (talk) 01:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In preferences, I added [[User:Anthonyhcole|Anthonyhcole]] ([[User talk:Anthonyhcole|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Anthonyhcole|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Anthonyhcole|email]]) to the "Signature" field and ticked the "Treat the above as wiki markup" box.

So, try pasting
[[User:Caitlin.swartz|Caitlin.swartz]] ([[User talk:Caitlin.swartz|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Caitlin.swartz|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Caitlin.swartz|email]])
(and tick the box). Let me know. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Ha ha! Snap! -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 02:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I do really love you. Let's get that straight. You're funny and fun and this place needs a lot more of both of those. Welcome back. Be good. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Groan.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TSC

Hi, it's interesting to see you saying I have demonstrated "poor judgment" - other than TSC you're the only person IIRC who has said that. Please feel free to provide specific diffs, I'd be interested to see an outside party's view on the matter. Also, please don't encourage TSC. Giant Snowman 20:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC) [reply]

On TSC's talk page I say "hint at poor judgment" because it's not clear. In the first incident he cites at his RFAR (this split conversation: a/b) you assume from the start that the sources he's using to establish the subject's notability don't cover the subject in significant detail.

Two hours into the discussion you tell him, "Stop being so difficult, and please find some more sources if you wish for me to unlock the article. ... Just because something is true does not mean it is notable. That is basic, basic, basic stuff." Three hours in you tell him, "No, I have looked at the sources - as I have stated (far too) many times, they do not meet GNG, as they are WP:ROUTINE and do not cover the subject in significant detail. For the 3rd or 4th time - are more sources available?" and "Something more than run-of-the-mill/transfer news - an in-depth piece(s) or interview in national media would suffice." When he tells you three of the four existing sources are interviews, you reply with, "Hmm, fine, I've opened it up."

It's hard to escape the impression that you didn't bother to look at the sources, or run them through Google translate or ask the editor what they were. You were a little patronising to him, and you didn't apologise for wasting his time. I say sorry if I block a doorway for a few seconds. So, on it's face there is a hint of arrogance and lack of diligence, and your graceless concession smacks of possible poor social judgment.

But I don't know the background. Perhaps he's been a complete arsehole to you before, and what I witnessed there was saintly restraint from you under the (unknown-to-me) circumstances. Or perhaps it was an isolated case, a lapse in an otherwise ideal record. Only lots of experience of you, or a rigorous review of your history, will tell. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did check the sources but did not know they they were as in-depth as they are for obvious reasons - I don't speak Armenian. TSC is a/was a difficult editor and despite my many requests, it took him far too long to confirm the depth of coverage. He also has a history of adding unreferenced material to BLPs so I was naturally doubtful of his 'significant sources.' So other than that, there is nothing that is concerning to you? Giant Snowman 08:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is, actually. But nothing about you, in particular. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear it! Please do not simply take the word of a disruptive user (who has caught the attention of many admins with his problematic behaviour) presenting one side of a story. Giant Snowman 08:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't take anyone's word, especially admins' about "disruptive" editors. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to take my word for it, simply look at his block log / restrictions / the BOOMERANG comments. Giant Snowman 09:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen his block log. Have you seen mine? I notice you do a bit of editing in football-related articles. Have you ever been in a content dispute with TSC? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, your block log is irrelevant here. A "bit" of editing is an understatement, football is my main area! Never been in a content dispute with TSC, though I have reverted him / challenged his edits on some articles (as you are already aware) - but I don't like your assumption here. Giant Snowman 10:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware you had reverted him / challenged his edits on some articles. What makes you think that? The only interaction I'm aware of is the discussion I quoted above. I guess I'm asking, have you and he been in any acrimonious editorial disputes - something that an independent observer might think disqualifies you from sanctioning him? I'm assuming nothing. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I presumed you were aware of our past intractions seeing as you have already provideddiffs to that effect...? As for "acrimonious editorial disputes" - no, definitely not, and if we had have been I guarantee TSC would have raised it already. Giant Snowman 10:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's a diff to one interaction where you're acting as an admin.

I'm just reading through his AE history and block log. I've just gotten up to your recent block but haven't read through the aftermath to the unblock yet. Did you concede that was an inappropriate block in hindsight (given the "exemption" TCO had given him), though I doubt you'd have any way of knowing the exemption existed at the time? There is a case to be made that the block was appropriate, if you consider the name of an Armenian player to have cultural implications. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My take on the AE block conclusion (and obviously I'm slightly biased here!) was that the block was with merit (as you state, the cultural implications of the Armenian vs. Russian name), but due to the confusion regarding the sports exemption it was fairer to remove it. It's also worth noting that I suggested removing the block (diff can be provided if you're interested) a day or two before it actually was, purely becauese I was possibly INVOLVED (as I had given an opinion at the RM that led to the block). Giant Snowman 11:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then, you probably shouldn't have blocked him. I'm not going to engage in an admin review here. Your attitude toward this editor has been little different to the attitude of far too many admins here, nurtured by an ethos of slackness and contempt, born out of impunity. Changing you, BWilkins, Sandstein, Kww, and the rest will probably have to wait for significant structural change, which you all will no doubt fight tooth and claw. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewing admin said it was not trout-worthy, make of that what you will. And you're logic is impeccable - of course four experienced admins are all at fault here rather than one editor with a track record of issues. Giant Snowman 12:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you said you were possibly involved, that you asked for the block to be lifted because of those doubts. Under those circumstances, you probably shouldn't have blocked the editor in the first place.

And speaking of logic, I'd appreciate it if you'd stop pointing to adminship on the one hand and block logs on the other as if they say anything meaningful about a person's credibility or worth. I don't expect you to understand why I'd make such a request, given the milieu in which you're immersed, but I'd like you to comply, at least on my talk page.

In the reading I've done so far around this editor, it is the admins who are behaving badly. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Check the AE thread - I only realised I could be construed as INVOLVED after I made the block, and therefore invited it to be removed immediately on that basis - but, as it was not for another day or two, I'm happy enough to say I wasn't INVOLVED. Where have I pointed to adminship as being meaningful with regards to credibility or worth? However, I won't mention block logs again here. And as for admins behaving "badly" - which ones? Where? Giant Snowman 12:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not impressed with Sandstein's block for TSC's comment and reporting another editor to Sandstein's talk page. TSC obviously didn't think it was a violation. All that was needed there was an explanation. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bad behaviour? Only your negligence/arrogance regarding sources for the Beglaryan article that I mentioned above, your blocking when possibly involved, and Sandstein's behaviour I note above.

I should say I see TSC's block log notes sock-puppetry (but unfortunately doesn't link to the circumstances around that), so if that is clear then he loses a lot of cred in my book. The AA topic ban isn't a good look either. But. I've seen perfectly innocent but angry editors blocked for sock-puppetry and topic-banned. Even assuming he's a real problem (and I don't concede that because I have yet to see the evidence), there will always be problem editors to deal with. We shouldn't have to put up with problem admins though.

I guess what I'm saying is our "justice"/"social control" processes and admin-selection process are so inadequate, and the integrity and diligence of some admins is so wanting that no one can form an opinion about any situation here based on the sanctions applied or assertions made by admins - regardless of how many endorse each others' actions and views. The only valid way of forming a reliable view of any social situation here is to look at every diff.

This, in turn, is made tremendously difficult by admins' habit of neither linking to underlying causes in block logs, nor linking to relevant discussions, relevant prior sanctions, etc in block notices on the blockee's talk page.

Regarding, "Where have I pointed to adminship as being meaningful with regards to credibility or worth?" I'm referring to: "Please do not simply take the word of a disruptive user (who has caught the attention of many admins with his problematic behaviour)..." and "The reviewing admin said it was not trout-worthy, make of that what you will. And you're logic is impeccable - of course four experienced admins are all at fault here rather than one editor with a track record of issues." --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:46, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So I have gone from "[a] hint [of] poor judgment" to outright negligence and arrogance? Quite a jump! Giant Snowman 08:29, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. :) (That's my evolving view, the more I look at this one case.) But, you're in good company! About half of the admins I know fit that description and they're all well-meaning and generally valuable (possibly invaluable) contributors to this great project. I really don't expect you to see this as I do, and though I realise there is a likelihood you'll be offended - as BWilkins surely is - that offense is not my intention, it is, rather, an unpleasant side-effect of something I feel I must say, for the overall good of the project. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hostile frontier

Hi Anthony. You mentioned hostile frontier at Wikimania. I would like to continue our dialogue about what can be done about. This morning I've lead a discussion about adopting friendly virtual space policy. With the group that attended I will try to develop something in the coming year. I really like to get your input on your analysis of the hostile frontier. Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 08:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Let's chat onwiki after the conference. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Memento

Source for medical claims

Hi Anthony. I noticed that you edit mostly on medical topics and remembered that you commented on the Proactiv article about the sources I used regarding the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of the product, which was a medical claim.

I guess I must have been really far off over here regarding an issue with a source for a medical claim. I've read the link UseTheCommandLine provided, but for someone with very little experience editing medical topics, it's a confusing guideline.

I was wondering if I could borrow you to educate me, so I can avoid getting barked at for not knowing my stuff in the future ;-)

I don't care to continue that string in particular, just want to make sure I use better judgement in the future. CorporateM (Talk) 00:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've put my thoughts on the article talk page. (I corrected what looks like a typo' in your opening paragraph here. Please revert me if that was impertinent.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, thanks.

I'd be happy to help cleanup the article a bit, but would want to avoid the speculation that I was tampering with it in some way. Even though RTI holds no position on the issue and is not partisan in any way, such speculation being unfounded does not prevent it from being raised.

However, I don't see any issue with just leaving it on the Talk page and hopefully at some point someone will focus on this article a bit and find it useful. WP:NORUSH CorporateM (Talk) 06:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably the best course at this stage. It's on a lot of watchlists and will be looked at by several medical editors over the next few days.

Using primary sources in medical articles is more an art than a science. The closer you get to information that may modify health-related behaviour of patients and practitioners, the more important it is to stick to "secondary" sources, in my opinion. In this instance, the only behaviour your proposal might affect is that of public policy or public education practitioners, and at most it will persuade them to read the Squiers report. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:11, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have gotten a few different opinions regarding whether RTI should be mentioned in these and I don't want to be seen as making a bunch of sneaky plugs. RTI publishes a lot of research in peer reviewed journals and the value of someone who authors reliable sources adding it to Wikipedia seems like a no-brainer.

So I suppose I could either err on the safe side and never mention them, or I could just post helpful sources on Talk with no expectation of immediate implementation and let editors do what they will. IMO I do not want to learn how to make subtle judgement calls neutrally where I have a COI, but instead should just leave it up to regular editors. CorporateM (Talk) 13:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have almost never mentioned the research team in a Wikipedia article. The only exceptions I can recall are historical landmarks such as here where I mention Merck's and Mayo Clinic's role in streptomycin testing, or occasional references to Cochrane Collaboration meta-analyses, because they are developing a reputation (though sometimes unwarranted) as the gold standard in medical evidence - and then only a couple of times.

I want to see organisations like RTI making their research known via Wikipedia, where relevant; and placing relevant studies and reviews on article talk pages seems like a reasonable way to go. Generally, "primary sources" (reports of trials, single observational studies, one-off epidemiological studies, etc.) won't be added to the article for the reasons outlined in WP:MEDRS, but there will be exceptions.

So, if a "primary source" isn't addressing or implying something about safety or efficacy, it may be worth mentioning on the relevant talk pages. If you have the opportunity to point anyone at RTI to WP:MEDRS it may help them to gain perspective on what can and can't be achieved with their work here. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I find it awkward to cite a study without saying who ran it, but then one of the frustrating things about having a COI when you are also a regular contributor, is you get use to (as a volunteer) just making articles the way you like it. When you have a COI, even if you are actually correct, you won't always get your way and there are a lot of psychological factors in how editors treat you, the assumptions they make, etc. The extent of involvement from RTI is as follows: I said it was a great idea, they said ok, I sent them a link where I made the post. That's pretty funny to think they would read a Wikipedia policy document though :-p (*just teasing) In the future, I'll just post the sources. CorporateM (Talk) 16:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Neurotomy

Hello, Anthonyhcole. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Neurotomy, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

edit the page
remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. MrScorch6200 (talk) 05:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Done. Neurotomy is a huge topic in medicine. It is covered by many textbooks, textbook chapters and peer-reviewed journal articles, so its notability per WP:GNG is beyond doubt. Yes, the first line of this stub is a definition. The first line of pretty much every medical article on this site is a definition. If your problem with the article is that it needs more work, I agree. But that's not grounds for deletion.

If you've been told by someone that definitions aren't allowed in the lede of Wikipedia articles or that a stub consisting only of a definition must be deleted, or have seen that written in a guideline, I'd appreciate it if you could let me know who said it or where you saw it. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

VP: page curation

You may even wish to help develop it. I don't really like doing things like this on my own, and have always had the best RfC results when they were prepared by a small team before being released for tearing to bits by the community ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd very much appreciate the opportunity to tear your ideas to pieces and drown you in self-doubt, before anyone else. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Name-dropped at Russavia's Commons brouhaha

Here. Essentially, Vandenburg is taking your comment and using that to conclude "that russavia didn't commission this painting". I don't think you're saying that, as it seems pretty clear to all that some form of quid pro quo took place between the two in regards to image and/or video creation and usage. If you are saying that and agreeing with Vandenbuerg's interpretation, then I'll say you're both wrong, of course. :) Tarc (talk) 15:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion?

Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I see you've started an RFC. Man. There is so much reading in your required reading pack. Interesting though. It's a shame about the Foundation's "Problem? What problem?" attitude. Actually, it's a shame that important user interface issues are in the hands of people who seem to lack even a modicum of clue about anything but coding. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I know those people quite well, some of them right at top even personally and we get on reasonably well in spite of my constant bickering over the years. That said, they come basically in two types: those who are programmers or other functionaries who don't have a clue about editing the Wikipedia, and those who have edited so much they have forgotten what a challenge the place is to the newbies. As regards the RfC, the reading list list is long but you can be sure that most contributors won't read it. Most voters on RfC vote 'as per...' when there are enough comments to copy. Personally I'm not worried which way the RfC goes, but it's worth a try. If it doesn't get consensus, we'll simply think of something else. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Progress

[9] Thank you very much - I have followed your advice please view 'talk' pageHog1983 (talk) 12:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC) How long should I wait for an answer for or consensus on the issues ? Or do I make the edit in the source? thank you in advance for your help.Hog1983 (talk) 13:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the continuing communication - however I have now studied the guidelines and only included mainstream sources including Brazilian Food Safety Agency and Le Monde - one editor is now starting to agree with changes - but the other vetos everything - I don't know what I can do?Hog1983 (talk) 15:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hog1983 (talk • contribs)

Cool. It's all about persuasion and time, and mastery of Wikipedia policy. Every time you have a few loose minutes, read one of those policies on Squeakbox'x list on your page. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

see here

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Ip_user_129.27.202.101_blitzing_wiki_with_duplicated_text --Penbat (talk) 17:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've reveerted most of today's spam, I think. [10] --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might like...

Dropping off your ideas at WP:MEDMISS. Best! Biosthmors (talk) 15:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Good idea! --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Labiaplasty

FYI as you've commented on this before, but don't worry if you're busy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still quite busy IRL, but watchlisted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that last night. He's a worry. I'm not well-enough across the topic to propose changes but will look carefully at any concrete proposals. PP was a good step for this contentious topic. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your free Cochrane account is on its way!

Please fill out this very short form to receive your free access to Cochrane Collaboration's library of medical reviews: Link to form.

If you have any questions, just ask me. Cheers, Ocaasi 13:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Safe harbor

Re the discussion on Jimbo's talk, note that due to safe harbor provisions, the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be sued for libel. It's been tried several times (Barbara Bauer was the first), and each time the courts said that the Foundation is not responsible: only the individual editors who added the material are. Andreas JN 466 20:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's gone through to the keeper now. If they took (or knowingly failed to take) an office action that resulted in or preserved defamation, they'd be vulnerable. But the issue is subject welfare, not who could get sued. We drew the short straw in the founder stakes, in terms of moral compass. His indifference to the dignity of our subjects coupled with his inability to ever admit being wrong nurtures the pathological culture of arrogance and contempt here.

Did you notice him calling for the desysopping of an admin who was (possibly a little over-) zealously upholding BLP? User:Jimbo Wales, please resign any rights you have here and stick to modelling watches and obsessively proving your perfection and infallibility.

This project is autistic/psychopathic toward its editors, readers and subjects. (I know you don't get that.) With someone like you as its figurehead, changing that ethos is much harder than it needs to be. Find something else to do, and stop pretending to speak for this project. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kidnapping of Hannah Anderson

Thanks for your contribution to this discussion. Please see Talk:Kidnapping of Hannah Anderson for my proposed solution to the potential WP:BLP violation. Dwpaul (talk) 20:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. That was an excellent resolution. Thank you. (I have no opinion about the dog.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But see a new edit[11] by ThVa that introduces information (cited, but mainly to HuffPo and not necessarily RS) implying the complicity of the alleged victim, which the editor describes as "critical" to include. Dwpaul (talk) 16:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to understand what you mean with the word "but" in "but mainly to HuffPo". Despite varying opinions on the quality of that news source, it is clearly accepted and I've seen it used around Wikipedia. (Edit:) By the way, it is not I who is implying possible complicity; this comes out of the citations I added. FWIW, my personal view is that it's plausible, with no definitive evidence either way. What is definite, however, is that this information is as noteworthy as anything could possibly be in this case.ThVa (talk) 16:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ThVa and Dwpaul I've reverted it for now. We have to be very careful with how we treat living persons. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being careful doesn't mean taking a sledgehammer to everything I added. You should propose different wording for introducing the citations I had added, rather than removing them outright. The full truth about this case may never come out, but what is known is that there is tremendous uncertainty on the specific issue, and the article as it stands is biased in excluding this information in a targeted manner, because it implies that there is definitive consensus that she is purely a victim and blameless in this case. ThVa (talk) 17:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HuffPo is a soft news source. It blindly repeats a lot of what it hears, from a lot of subjective and not necessarily reliable sources, with no attempt to verify. To HuffPo, an allegation, even from non-RS, is itself news. That's fine, but it does not meet the standards of WP for verifiability, especially as it pertains to living persons. As for the AllVoices cite, photos can be flipped, either intentionally or accidentally. The photos do not prove anything, and one blogger's speculations do not constitute a reliable source. People speculate, but the fact that speculation exists does not need to be reflected in a WP article, and speculation should not be reinforced by inclusion in an encyclopedic article here. (If a law enforcement source connected to the case expresses doubts, that may be appropriate to include, but they generally know better.) This discussion should probably move to the article's Talk page. Dwpaul (talk) 17:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've been reading the 2 Huffington Post articles and the third source. Yes, let's take this to the article talk page. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you were asking Sue for something

I did see this: Wikipedia:Office_actions#Who_initiates_office_actions. Best. Biosthmors (talk) 08:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. When I tried to initiate a discussion with Jimbo on this topic he ignored me, which he's done on almost every occasion I've addressed him (hence my final failure of AGF above) and there is no way Philippe - who, incidentally, insulted me the first time he addressed me, and then faux-apologised with an insulting apology (details) - or Maggie will initiate an office action for content that "only" insults one of our subjects. Leaving Maggie, WhatamIdoing, Maryana and Sj aside, everyone I've ever dealt with at the Foundation has been rude, sadly, so I asked Sue, who ignored me. So, make of that what you will. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I've had good interactions with several of the staff, but I understand the perception. I get the impression that the WMF staff are very busy and given that some of the Wikimedians aren't wise at online communication, sometimes we have a hurdle to being heard, even if our concerns are logical. That said, I had a nice email from a WMF communications person about a possible press release yesterday. I got to talk with Stu West who was very nice (board member). SJ was very helpful. Jimmy just seems so busy if it's not in his main area of interest he just doesn't have time. I've never interacted with Phoebe or Raystorm. Funny you mention the rude thing, considering I just posted that (but please don't pile on there!) =). When I met Sue she quickly and energetically hugged and kissed, if I remember correctly, then went to hop in a taxi with other board members. Jan-Bart de Vreede was nice and approachable. Anyhow, I'm not 100% convinced the battle you're fighting is the best one. I noticed Stephen Walling posted a tweet to the best analysis he could recommend. Ah. It's here and a board member co-authored. Have you seen it yet? Perhaps it will sway you to battle elsewhere. ;-) Best. Biosthmors (talk) 09:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For example, see there about Jimmy being busy and having a focus. Biosthmors (talk) 10:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had seen that Walling/Phoebe post but it was worth reading again, thanks. We'll have to disagree on the importance of this issue (which I see as respect for our subjects prevailing over other rules when doing so doesn't diminish the quality of the article). David Gerard's submission to the request for arbitration speaks for me really.

When the leaders of the Foundation organisation are themselves rude, insulting strangers and apologising with further insults, shouting at people and patronising them in edit summaries, ignoring sincere enquiries, it's not likely they're going to get that it matters when the encyclopedia is blaringly disrespectful to a subject, or when their noses are publicly rubbed into a case, think it's worth doing anything about.

My overriding concern for years has been the culture here. We will not get serious experts, on the whole, contributing in the present atmosphere. It's just recently that I've realised that the culture here (en) is just a mirror, as such things usually are, of the culture at the top. (There was a recent thread on Jimbo's talk page which I can't find now in which he was asked what he thought of the atmosphere here and his response was that there's no problem.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I find the general culture/communication/workflow behind the scenes less than ideal as well, generally speaking. But I feel like I did what I could with the diff presented. Consider that when I posted that idea to the community, I got a response from a person who ran as a board member making fun of my original wording (related idea now shared at WP:VPI), but when I emailed the WMF yesterday about why it should consider issuing a press release for Jesus (doesn't that have a nice ring?), the WMF guy said they could/might even pitch the idea to the press. Besides just taking pride in the content I've created and shaped, one of the most rewarding "cultural"/communication/collaborations I've had here was at Talk:Malaria/GA2, a failed good article nomination. But then cold water was poured on top of it by people complaining about how long it was taking. Two volunteers were happily improving one of the most important topics on Wikipedia and people found a reason to complain, because of the perceived bureaucratic violation. It seems that at some point, one just simply has to ignore that impulse in people here in order to continue volunteering here happily. Perhaps the culture here will always remain unsatisfactory in that regard (autistic, in your words?). It is a volunteer community, after all. To get a new expert on here (outreach is difficult anyways), I think we have to warn/train them that they might have to deal with ignorant criticism (sometimes I levy ignorant criticism myself), but don't let that distract you from the mission of the place. Ah, anyhow. At this point the normal human thing would be to sit back and drink a beer and play some sort of game like billiards or darts. But you're on the other side of the world! As I mentioned here, people talking to people talking is the normal thing/how ideas spread. O by the way, Wikipedia:Fuck is a good essay as well. See the nutshell. Kind of similar to the Serenity Prayer. Best of luck with the Manning issue! Too bad we can't "drink a cold one". Biosthmors (talk) 11:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if the community wants to use WP:Wikimedia Foundation to document instances of the WMF living up to or not living up to its perceived responsibility, then that's what it is there for. Biosthmors (talk) 11:07, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Wikimedia_Foundation#Reception. Biosthmors (talk) 11:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going offline now - I'll be back. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Philippe's position on the edit summary shouting in that case you mention (and his position on your using him as an example without hearing his side first).

Regarding WP:FUCK - "attachment to things (articles, policies, AfDs, etc...) which are essentially beyond your control is a stumbling block to being a good Wikipedian" - most of what happens here is beyond an individual's ultimate control, but we can attempt to influence policy and the behaviour of others ("people talking to people").

Coincidentally, I was deeply into that WT:MED proposal to respond to the BMJ that you mention in the public relations noticeboard proposal you linked to above, but dropped out abruptly when I witnessed some appalling bullying of subject-matter experts, and decided to not attempt to attract experts here until the Lord of the Flies ethos is sorted.

I'm glad you've persevered with WP:WMF because - though it's unsure what it will eventually be (and I understand the Foundation staff's trepidation) - we do need a unified interface rather than just two dozen individual gatekeepers with atomised talk pages, and if WT:WMF or WP:WMF evolve into that, I think that would be a step forward in en—-WMF relations. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finishing up a California vacation and dropped by to visit the office in San Francisco yesterday. All the employees I met were kind and a few of the senior employees were very gracious and generous with their time (including Terry Chay, Brandon Harris, Sumanah, and Trevor Parscal). I have more of an interest in the technical side right now and they were pretty honest and open about the challenges. Almost everyone needs external pressure to work effectively, but it needs to be presented as politely as possible. I feel like Wikipedia has always been quite rough ("toxic") interpersonally, and I'll admit that I've spent my fair share of time contributing to that. I really don't think incivility is rooted in the Foundation, even if I'm left scratching my head at the occasional evidence of shocking rudeness (e.g., Ironholds). It's tough to strike the balance between chastising people for inappropriate behavior and friendliness. It's also really tough not to hold festering grudges or get jealous of others. I believe we should have conference calls every once in a while when things get heated, as it seems harder to be vindictive when you can hear someone's tone. Ultimately, however, I'm of the attitude that no matter how tough it gets, if I leave it won't be voluntary (ie, banning or death). Wikipedia is too important to abandon. I have retreated though, and these days spend a lot of time editing my personal Evernote database (using NixNote) where before I may have edited Wikipedia. Anyway, thanks for all the work you two both do. II | (t - c) 20:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello II. Mmm. California in the summertime sounds like a dream. I agree that the Foundation personnel cop a lot of ugly, ignorant and just stupid communication, and most people I know are very sympathetic to that situation. However. The way Erik and Oliver and some others treated users with justified and reasonably-expressed criticism of the roll-out of both echo and VE (essentially treating them as troglodytic Ludites) was unforgivable in my opinion.

I don't share Wikipediocracy's outrage at Oliver's OTT humor on IRC, though I do disapprove of it in that venue and am glad the mini-scandal it provoked may have made them rethink the importance of simple good manners in public, mixed company spaces. And I do agree that conference calls and face-to-face meetings help turn avatars into people, and there should be a lot more of it. Thanks for dropping by. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence phase open - Manning naming dispute

Dear Anthonyhcole.

This is just a quick courtesy notice. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 19, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon ^talk 23:39, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Herbal Remedies section for anxiety

Hi, thanks for the rewrite on Herbal Remedies section in Anxiety page. I found also this source about chamomile but I'm not sure how to add it yet, in case you are interested to add it yourself: http://journals.lww.com/psychopharmacology/Abstract/2009/08000/A_Randomized,_Double_Blind,_Placebo_Controlled.13.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.195.45.181 (talk) 16:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Wikipedia health-related content has to cite sources that conform to this guideline: WP:MEDRS. That trial you cite doesn't qualify because it's a "primary" source. We use only recent "secondary" sources such as systematic reviews, and occasionally "tertiary" sources such as professional or government guidelines, for our efficacy and safety claims. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I will try to find something else that is considered a secondary source. 62.195.45.181 (talk) 18:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proactiv

Hi Anthony. A while back you commented on the Proactiv article after seeing it at WP:COIN. Since then, some edits have been made by others that I feel are a bit promotional. The lead should probably include the controversy over efficacy and price briefly and not be used to promote the company that develops the product and the new Proactiv+ section comes off as undue and promotional (though I will have to review the sources before making a call on that one).

The editor adding the new section has not responded to my ping and I was hoping for a partner-in-crime for some BrightLine(ish) collaboration on prepping it for GA.

Yup, that's right, the marketing guy has some problems with all this promotion being added to their page - how's that for the pot calling the kettle black ;-)

If it's something you have an interest in, I'll start reading the sources and see what I come up with on something more concise and neutral RE Proactiv + CorporateM (Talk) 23:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a quick look and made some changes. We're missing sources for some of the new content. It's not really my thing, though, so I doubt I'll be doing much more on it. Proactiv+ does seem to be a major departure for the company, so I don't see anything undue about adding a section on it - once sources are found. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: [12][13]. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These are not the droids you're looking for. I've never held a position at WMF or any of its chapters, nor have I ever set foot in Germany. No affiliation with whoever it is they're talking about. CorporateM (Talk) 12:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it becomes weird and you want me to correct the comment identifying you with Klempert in that thread, let me know. (Or you could jump in and do it yourself.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a request RE Proactiv here. I will try to find someone else that is interested, while secretly hoping to drag you into participating.

Well... hmmmm... I guess it doesn't matter either way to me RE Wikipediaocracy. That's the benefit of operating under an anonymous account. Speculation that I am Darth Vader or a squirrel are also welcome. CorporateM (Talk) 20:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the + stuff up to the #Products section and culled all of the unsourced stuff.[14] --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Idea for an article

Hi Anthony,

I have an idea for an article that I wanted to run past you: Psychological response to cancer, or something like that. The impetus is running across something on the rate of suicide among cancer patients. I'm more interested in the distress upon receiving a feared diagnosis and the differences in near-term reaction: Do you surrender to whatever your oncologist recommends? Try to disprove the diagnosis? Become an expert? Try altmed? Insist that more treatment is better? Refuse any treatment because it's pointless? Go on a weird diet?

But I think that there might be room in it for later issues, like requests for euthanasia, which are significantly driven by depression. I know you've done some work at Cancer fatigue and [[a lot at Cancer pain. If this a subject that you have any interest in? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:23, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is a great idea. Thanks. I'll take a look. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's not much in the journals - lots of primary sources, some narrowly-focussed reviews but not much by way of overviews. There seem to be good pickings in the textbooks, though. This is an important missing article. I'm re-prioritising my time but have ordered a couple of books and if something worthwhile arises from them I'll make that a blue link. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

For the last eighteen months I've mostly been concerned with the anarchic and arbitrary governance and the antisocial ethos here. I've come to the conclusion that because of the unique psychiatric profile of the demographic here we will never reform, and so will never attract and keep the level of subject matter expertise this project needs. I have a new project on, so won't be around much. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

unfinished thought

[15] "advising us" ... what? NE Ent 23:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I just noticed that. One of those "Did I say that out loud?" situations. Fixed. I think we should simply, usually, not report juvenile offenders' names, regardless of the legal situation, but we probably also need actual legal advice in this instance. I don't talk to Philippe. If you think legal advice is in order, would you mind asking him to take a look? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: AN post

Just a quick clarification: Bonkers said he was in Singapore. I am in Yogyakarta. It's a two hour flight. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! Sorry. I knew you were in Indonesia. It was very late and I was tired. I'm actually very unsettled by the outcome. I stumbled upon something in his history that explains a lot. If he wants to come back to editing I won't oppose it, provided he stays away from race and avoids being deliberately provocative. That is, I'm open to the possibility that he might learn from this experience. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've done some more snooping and no, he's a liar and a troll. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly beginning to think that. BTW, thanks for doing articles on both of the dinners. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It was very rewarding work. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The Original Barnstar
		For writing Booker T. Washington dinner at the White House and Jessie DePriest tea at the White House. Two fascinating (and timely) creations, well done! Hillbillyholiday ^talk 12:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you. (They're not finished.) Yes it was fascinating. In fact there could/should be an article covering the whole history of hospitality to African Americans in the White House. Sammy Davis Jr. slept over (I think as a guest of Nixon). There is a bit, but, tellingly, you could thoroughly cover all the pre-1970s stuff in a pretty compact article. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to second this. They're really interesting articles. Thanks, Anthony. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of White House hospitality toward African Americans for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article White House hospitality toward African Americans is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White House hospitality toward African Americans until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. St Anselm (talk) 06:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is harassment, pure and simple. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work, Anthony! And I see StAnselem was classy enough to withdraw. I do wonder why the AfD was proposed in the first place, but I doubt it was harassment. I'm just busy WP:AGF, I guess. =) Fantastic work, both of you. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 12:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TB

Hello, Anthonyhcole. You have new messages at Sven Manguard's talk page.
Message added 23:10, 27 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Sven Manguard Wha? 23:10, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Anthonyhcole. You have new messages at SarahStierch's talk page.
Message added 04:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

SarahStierch (talk) 04:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Diversity of species who are all saddened

[A trifle haughtily.] Diversity of people as well as other creatures miss little Nukular! bishzilla _ROARR!! 23:01, 4 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Damn. It's getting harder and harder to be appropriately inclusive. (Apologies to all spirits, gnomes and monsters, broadly construed.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:45, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Skype?

Turn it on in 20 minutes for you, so at 8PM there? Best. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 10:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Sorry. I've been offline all day. It's bedtime now. Ping me any time after 8 hours. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 15:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some baklava for you!

Hi Anchonyhcole! I just wanted to give a quite shoutout to say that although we've disagreed a few times on Wikimed, your calm manner and convincing arguments have won me over (as with dragging a mule up a mountain this usually requires several days of reflection :D). Regarding recent changes, I've added it to the navigation bar so other users can see it. LT90001 (talk) 12:40, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you LT. My favourite food group! --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Breathing out a light spray of baklava crumbs as she speaks :] Hi Anthonycole! Your calm manner and convincing arguments and delicious baklava have convinced me to steal it! Hahaha! The baklava made me happy and I'd like to give you a great big hug for leaving it where I could reach it. Spread the WikiLove by giving me more baklava, unless you want my boys to pay you a visit! darwinbish ^BITE ☠ 13:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]

At your mercy, ma'am. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC) [reply]

[Darwinfish likes baklava too. Tries to take a small piece from Anthony's sumptuous spread. Darwinbish chases him off angrily.] Mine! Bite! Gimme back that fork! darwinbish ^BITE ☠ 20:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Hello

Hi Anthonyhcole, thanks for letting me know your view. Actually I had not any such thing in my mind. But I agree the language could have been more neutral. But I do not understand why you say If it's normal now for people to insult others there...? Generally such thing do not happen there. Thanks for informing me the arbitration case. I was not aware of that. -AsceticRosé 13:25, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pleased to hear the tone is respectful now, it was the opposite before that arbitration case. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

As you previously participated in related discussions you are invited to comment at the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC for AfC reviewer permission criteria. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Making me blush

Hey, stop it. You're making me blush - it's not good for my ego either you know ;-)

I was wondering if I could exploit your good faith in my contributions by asking if you have some time to chip in on a couple articles I am trying to get GAN-ready in a BrightLine(ish) format. Seems a lot of folks are either unavailable or distracted/paralyzed by the paid editing debate in the wake of the Wiki-PR scandal. CorporateM (Talk) 20:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no harm in asking. Point me to them. Please don't be devastated if I don't. I'm lazy and boundlessly self-indulgent. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, first up, the Monster (company) page is in the process of being re-written, but in the BrightLine(ish) process, some of the controversies were added twice with basically the same content. There's:

A dedicated Trademarks controversy section and a sub-section on the same topic under History
The controversial Candlestick Park sponsorship is under Recent History and duplicated in a dedicated section.

Per WP:Criticism, I would think we would want to keep these controversies both under History, rather than in dedicated sections, but either way I'm poking around finding someone to address the redundancy and the content is too controversial for me to do it myself. CorporateM (Talk) 20:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony, would you be so kind as to remove the reference to Hy Averback in the opening paragraph of the page? You said you had done it, but it's still there. See my talk page. Thanks ever so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.112.235.2 (talk) 08:49, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meng's work

I already provided reviews (includes journal articles) from peers. I copy it to here again since you can't read. 'Very positive reviews of the book from peers can be found here. Reviewers include Marc Bekoff Chief editor of encyclopedia of animal welfare and animal rights , Andrew N Rowan CEO of Humane society international. ' There are many articles including several journal/book articles that reviewed and cited the work. Go to the bottom of the page. 124.149.122.14 (talk) 08:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"since you can't read" is a rather inappropriate statement, and merely undermines your argument by showing a WP:BATTLE mentality. You might want to rethink how you interact with others - you'll find it goes further around here. Regardless, you've been advised about WP:CONSENSUS, and opening an WP:RFC on the article talkpage - that's the ONLY place where content discussions belong. However, if consensus is that Meng's (or anyone's for that matter) is unacceptable, you need to live with that decision ES &L 09:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll respond at Talk:Animal welfare where this is being discussed, to keep the discussion in one place. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the paragraph I put here, was copied and pasted from the talk page. The comment of reading is not original to you. But it does relevant to the situation. Because you did not research the talk page and you should have done it. 124.149.122.14 (talk) 09:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC) I think you show a WP:BATTLE mentality by calling valid scientific contributions spams and commented on topic you have not researched into. 124.149.122.14 (talk) 10:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree "spam" is an insulting term, and we should look for a less derisory term for these situations. I'll give it some thought - and avoid using "spam" in future. As for WP:BATTLE, I hope not. I'm just trying to maintain the independence, neutrality and reliability of this encyclopedia. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

what do you mean by 'less derisory'? can you rephrase please?124.149.122.14 (talk) 11:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Belittling"? We have a lingo that after a few years feels normal to regulars here but which can be quite hurtful to newcomers. We need to rethink a number of those cute terms. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:45, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

great, then I will start to use spam to describe your edits. you will think it' regular, not a insult right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.122.14 (talk) 12:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But "spam" has a worldwide-known meaning. Anthony's edits don't match that meaning. Calling them spam would be pointless and WP:POINTY at the same time ES &L 12:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, Anthony said things different here. Spam is not insulting. 124.149.122.14 (talk) 12:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

? You mean where Anthony said "I agree "spam" is an insulting term"? Bishonen | talk 14:20, 24 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]

I'll freely use the term "spam" here, especially since the IP's edits are as randomly strewn about as spam is. This animal welfare specialist just reverted me here (Iran–Sweden relations), here (Suffering), with "vandalism" as the rationale. Note that the two edits are made nine minutes apart from different IPs: the editor is obviously flipping the switch in between edits to avoid scrutiny and mass rollback. Anthony, ES&L, any suggestions on how we can counter this? Drmies (talk) 14:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And see this and this. That's four different IP addresses between 5:41 and 5:54. Drmies (talk) 14:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- They love you, huh? Unfortunately it's a bigass range. Can't be blocked. :-( Bishonen | talk 14:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]

ES&L? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I find it hard to believe this IP is the author of the thesis. It's not impossible, but given the behaviour and the grasp... I'm going to email Meng and see what they say about this situation. It's 1:44AM in Queensland now so I don't expect a response for a while. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That didn't work. The only email address I could find (UQ) is stale. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:34, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have read as much of the dissertation as Google Books allowed me to, but most of it is numbers--there isn't enough prose in there to compare styles. The IP has a very particular style (that is, in their errors); one would assume that, if the dissertation is really as good and as peer-reviewed as the IP argued, that it would have gone through rigorous editing, taking out all the grammatical and mechanical infelicities, such as ascribing an activity to an inanimate object, fragmented sentences, misspelled words, tense problems, pronoun errors, missing prepositions, etc.: "The diversity of the articles listed above demonstrated Dr Meng's wild spread contributions (covers many disciplines) to science. It just proved the importance of Meng's work. She established 9 math indexes and discovered hundreds correlations. Many journal papers can only report one correlation they discovered. Which means Meng's thesis is equivalent to hundreds papers." Such prose can hardly come from such a fabulistic and important scholar. Drmies (talk) 16:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares about languages? You don't sounds like someone who is good at science. Can you focus on something more important? Can you, for example, comment about deeper things such as the methods, the logics, and the mathematical models? About half US scientists in the universities are foreign born(not native English speaker), the percentage of foreign born scientists is higher in hard core scientific disciplines, such as math and engineering. These guys contribution to science is enormous, although they don't bother speak perfect English. Many computer scientists understand many computer languages, each of the language have its grammars and vocabularies. English is just another one on their list. language is superficial. 124.170.213.46 (talk) 22:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That language is sometimes considered "superficial" is clearly established in that half-baked JM index questionnaire, yeah. For the record, Ms. who cares about languages (on the English wikipedia!), I'm a PhD in the United States, non-native English speaker, foreign-born and still with foreign citizenship, with an academic background in physics, history of science, philosophy, and English language and literature. Plus, I have a dog that I'm very kind to, mostly. Get back to me when you know your ass from your elbow. Drmies (talk) 14:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've ground to a halt. It's bedtime and I have a busy morning. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Natti natti! Drmies (talk) 17:33, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone for helping out here. It may be worth contacting Professor Clive Phillips (Dr Meng's Ph.D. advisor) at Queensland University to ask his opinion on whether these disruptive edits are likely to be from Dr Meng. I would do this myself, but prefer not to as this would put me in great danger of being inadvertently outed

- something I prefer to avoid. I will not publically post his email address, but it can be found here [16]. I also agree Dr Meng should be contacted to let her know about these edits.__DrChrissy (talk) 17:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No no no no no no DrChrissy we are NOT going to do ANYTHING like that. This is something we can handle here. It is entirely possible that the IP has nothing to do with the person, and at any rate it is highly inappropriate for us to involve ourselves with a real person and their supervisor/employer/whatever. Please see WP:OUTING, but really, think about it. Perhaps they are that person, and if so, it's a totally BONEHEADED move. But if you make that call you may destroy their career, and boneheaded move or not this is not something we can have on our conscience. Drmies (talk) 17:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the policy of WP not Outing people and I have been very careful in my phrasing of edits that I did not do this inadvertently. Outing is not my intention in the slightest. My concern is that if it was my work that was being misrepresented in such a way, I would want to know.__DrChrissy (talk) 19:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to sound like a wise old man and choose exaggeration as my rhetorical tool. :) Still, I don't think this would ever be a good idea. I'm working on removing as many instances as I can. Drmies (talk) 21:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AW TP is protected. It shows how desperate are some people, Censorship. WOW.

DrChrissy claim bekoff's article is a blog. No, it is a science column written by qualified experts. Not blog in the sense of the Wikipedia policy, that everyone can open an account and write anything they like.

Just a note, DrChrissy added one of the article (see reference [19]) from the same column by the same person into animal welfare.

Why DrChrissy don't go contact people herself? Because more people will know she is trying to control the animal welfare article.

I think it's general a good idea to contact people, validating facts, it is research. So you can stop assume bad faith of others. Meng's work is high in scientific merit, it can be exam as much as you want. Need no worry because you can't damage her career.

124.170.213.46 (talk) 22:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the reasons outlined by Drmies above, I think it would be wrong to contact any of Meng's colleagues about this but I see no problem contacting Meng herself. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies recent edits

Do you think Drmies' recent activity is constructive and good for Wikipedia readers? https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/Drmies 124.170.227.240 (talk) 23:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Categorically~~ Uncategorically yes. SmartSE (talk) 23:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would have said "uncategorically yes". We have one editor who has been clearly advised that the rules of Wikipedia say "do not add anything by that individual to articles UNTIL you have it approved by the WP:RSN" who bizarrely continues to do just that using multiple IP addresses. Drmies activity is 100% constructive, while the anon editor who refuses to play by the rules they agreed to when they came to this private website is completely non-constructive, and doing a disservice to Meng, the project, and its readers ES &L 00:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doh! It was getting late... SmartSE (talk) 10:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies removed chucks of information first, by doing this they also removed recent edits of DrChrissy . The IPs were fixing their mistakes.124.168.63.167 (talk) 00:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The amount and scope of what the IP has been doing is quite impressive. I'm most impressed, though, by the number of IP addresses they manage to conjure up. How does that work? Resetting the router every time? Or are they editing while driving from one IP address to the next? Sounds dangerous. Why do they refuse to get an account, if their edits are so constructive and that book/dissertation better than a hundred journal articles? Why didn't that book ever get published? Why does someone who can tell us all about sex, gender, animals, social stratification, dog and horse racing, etc. not get a single hit in JSTOR, or a tenure-track position, on the basis of that book alone? Drmies (talk) 02:28, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The removal campaign of Drmies is truely destructive. She also removed many citation from other authors, please see animal welfare for example. Please independently verify every change she made.
Stop assume things,Drmies. Don't judge people by a closed mind. It's not your business how Dr Meng want to live her life. Your interests may not be her interests at all. Not everyone care about the hierarchical/superficial thing you listed. Insecure people desperately need those approval though. Dr Meng is a herbivore and she supports animal rights, you can see her films about animals. Most people don't live life like that. Again don't assume everyone is like you.124.168.46.132 (talk) 02:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend looking into whether we can get that problematic source added to the spam blacklist. If I understand correctly any admin can just go add it to the list. All edits that try to add a link to the source will be rejected. Zad68 02:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adding: Looking at the refspam itself, it doesn't have a link and so I'm not sure the SBL will be effective. Given the intentional use of changing IPs it surely is being added in an insidious, deliberately bad-faith way. I'm pretty sure there are tools to deal with this, even if it's just getting a bot to do a search for the refs and then just removing them manually. Zad68 03:03, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

kid, AGF, how do you know it's 'intentional use of changing IPs'? I use mobile internet, it automatically reconnect, and resets IPs when signals gets bad, and this happens often.

124.168.46.132 (talk) 03:09, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Funny. It's not automatically reconnecting now, apparently. Only when you add that "book" all over Wikipedia. Interesting! Why don't you explain to us, with your open mind and all that, why you refuse to get an account? Why does Anthony have to play host to your evasive tactics? Why, if we have to have this here since you don't have a talk page, don't you even have the decency to bring some cake or flowers for your host? Drmies (talk) 13:12, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'It's not automatically reconnecting' Untrue, as documented in the page, my IP changed several times during the day. Please stop assume bad faith at people.
'Why don't you explain to us' Who bother to talk to someone constantly assume bad faith at you, insult you and harassed you? I don't.
it is not your business if I use an account. People don't need an account to use wikipedia. I choose not to. We communicate perfectly right now. A talk page make no difference to me. I had an account before, good you dig it out, because that is a wonderful evidence to disprove you: There is no cake and flowers for having an account, you only get bully, harassment and attack.

124.149.35.242 (talk) 14:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop spamming your paper across Wikipedia's articles. Zad68 03:12, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you talking to? I did not insert a single paper of mine into wikipedia.124.168.46.132 (talk) 03:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IP

IP, as you can see from comments here and elsewhere it is hard to avoid at least the suspicion that you are Meng, inappropriately broadcasting her own work all over this project, in breach of our editing norms and in defiance of consensus (the ultimate determinant of our content). At least one of the editors watching this behaviour is active in the field Meng hopes to thrive in. If you seriously hope to advance her reputation with this behaviour, you are achieving the opposite effect. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'editing norms' You are assuming norms. Your norms may not be the norms of others. Can you provide wikipedia policy document to support your norms?
'in the field Meng hopes to thrive in' This is your assumption. How do you know this is the case, you emailed her, asked her? Meng is a data scientist. I am not aware any proper expert in her field showed up in the discussion. If there were, the discussion would not be so difficult. Right now, I have to explain a study to many laypeople. 124.168.46.132 (talk) 09:15, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'advance her reputation' again, an assumption. this is not my intention at all. I mentioned multiple times. My purpose is share knowledge with people. I do not see anything I do is against wikipedia established principles. But many things the editors above have done was clear voilations. 124.168.46.132 (talk) 08:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This knowledge is not yet suitable for sharing on Wikipedia. Each volunteer may form their own opinion regarding the value of a source and if the "consensus" is that a source is not suitable, we go with the consensus. The sources that cite and use Meng's thesis that you have so far presented at Talk:Animal welfare aren't sufficient, in my opinion, to justify using it as a source here. Yet. If it gets cited by more, and more diverse, sources then my opinion may change.

The overriding norm here is consensus-forming - persuading others using sound argument. If you fail to persuade most people involved in a debate (and I fail most of the time) you just take it on the chin and respect the consensus.

It should be clear to you that most (all, I think) of the editors who have looked at this issue disagree with your opinion as to the thesis's present suitability as a source for Wikipedia. By all means continue to discuss this question on talk pages, but when it is clear that there is no support here for using it, please don't add it to articles. That is how this place operates. No one has anything against Meng or the thesis (it appears to be a valuable contribution to human knowledge and I'm somewhat surprised it hasn't received more notice), it's just that we use fairly simplistic "objective" measures (such as how often it's cited, where and by whom) to measure "reliability" - we don't take into account our own assessment of its intelligence or intrinsic worth. This odd process is a necessary outcome of the site's design - anonymous editors whose personal judgment of the intrinsic merits of a source obviously can't be trusted.

If you haven't been there already, can I suggest you take this issue to Wikipedia:Reliable sources noticeboard? There you can ask the advice of uninvolved volunteers with experience in applying Wikipedia policy regarding reliable sources. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'fairly simplistic "objective" measures '

Wikipedia is very biased (wp:bias) ethnically. The editors choose what they like. What annoys me is it is a discriminatory system but some editors pretend they are fair. In order to justify their discrimination, they use lame excuses to reject and insult the work. This just show how insecure they are.

Your logic is flawed. On one hand you said it is decide by the editors. on the other side you said "we don't take into account our own assessment of its intelligence or intrinsic worth". Then who are people actually making the decision? You can't deny you are discriminatory.

124.168.46.132 (talk) 09:50, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All these notice board are irrelevant to the situation. Does Wikipedia have some sort of anti-discrimination notice boards? They will be actually helpful.124.168.46.132 (talk) 10:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We don't use our own opinion of a source's intrinsic intelligence or value - we look at what is said about it by others in published sources, how often it's cited or reviewed, who cites or reviews it, where it is cited or reviewed, etc..

If you think someone is being discriminated against on the basis of nationality, race, religion, sex, gender or age, the place to raise it is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'what is said about it'. I provided many peer opinions, from reliable source. For example, Marc bekoff is the leading expert in the field. He published several encyclopedias.
There are plenty of sources on wikipedia that is not reviewed by anyone. You just singled my case out. 124.168.46.132 (talk) 10:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of articles on Wikipedia with inappropriate sources, sadly. But when an editor challenges a source, and consensus forms that it doesn't have sufficient recognition, the source is removed. That probably happens well over a thousand times a day. What I look for is significant numbers of published sources by different, independent authors reviewing or citing a theory or finding before I'll tolerate it in Wikipedia. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:09, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your information about anti-discrimination. I have formally reported the case to ANI.

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Discrimination_.2C_WP:BIAS_and_racist_admins 124.149.35.242 (talk) 13:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have just spent quite a bit of time on the Web of Knowledge search engine, trying to find out how many times Meng's book has been cited. (Web of Knowledge is an EXTREMELY powerful search engine used by many academics in universities to research their science.) The search engine failed to even find the book despite my taking into account that two first names are used (Jenia and Jia) and I used the widest of search terms such as "animal", "welfare" and "attitudes". I know the book exists because the Australian National Library has a copy, but I am amazed this search engine can not find it, furthering by doubts about the reliability of source.

If anyone wishes to see futher information about Dr Meng, she has openly posted these on her web-site[17]

__DrChrissy (talk) 18:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Web of Knowledge is an EXTREMELY powerful search engine' Not as powerful as Google products. It is 2013. Google products are first choice of many academics.124.170.229.130 (talk) 06:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well if this is the case, please use your Google products to tell us how many times Meng's book has been cited and who has cited it. This is the type of information Web Of Knowledge provides and the type of information we have asked for to verify the suitability of the source.__DrChrissy (talk) 14:32, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suburban Express

We would apprciate any guidance you can give us http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Guidance_Sought We feel the Suburban Express article is being dominated by haters, who cry foul whenever and however we push back. We would like to see the article more neutral/balanced/objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.147.28.113 (talk) 05:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've made some suggestions at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Guidance Sought. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. As you know, I'm waiting for a pending name change. I've stayed away from posting on the noticeboard until the name change is complete, and I thoroughly appreciate that I have a COI and must not edit Suburban Express. However, I am under the impression that it is permissible for me to contribute to the Suburban Express talk page. One thing that has plagued the article is the fact that conventional-media sources are not necessarily avaialble online. There has been productive discussion on the talk page today, and I am encouraged by that, and I offered up two conventional-media articles, which are pdf's on my company's server -- because they do not exist elsewhere on the internet. The links were immediately whacked by OrangeMike:

"20:46, 27 October 2013‎ Orangemike (talk | contribs)‎ . . (188,881 bytes) (-367)‎ . . (1. You were unblocked so you could get a new username; 2. those were links to your corporate website) (undo)"

I have two questions: 1) Should I have posted as IP user instead? Or am I just expected to keep quiet until the username change is complete?, 2) What is the issue with the "corporate website"? The links are to pdf's of legitimate, unaltered news paper articles.

Your guidance will be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suburban Express President (talk • contribs) 20:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Sorry. You and I are on opposite sides of the world. That was because Orangemike wants you to create a user name that conforms to WP:ROLE before you do any more communicating here, and he (mistakenly in my opinion) thinks it is a copyright violation to briefly host a link to a copyrighted document while a few people discuss it.

I don't have time to get involved with your case but my one reading of the article tells me that it needs to say something about the litigation - provided the sources reporting it are strong. If they do conform to Wikipedia:Reliable sources, don't expect to have all mention removed. The quality of the sources can be assessed by independent eyes at WP:RSN or maybe you could attract more independent eyes via a Wikipedia:Request for comment (you should follow that blue link if you don't already know about RFC) on the article's talk page. And the amount of space devoted to the litigation and criticism of it (and the language used) needs independent eyes (maybe at WP:NPOVN or at an RFC if you decide to go down that road).

User:SlimVirgin is a very experienced, widely-respected admin. If she offers any advice, it's usually worth taking.

Have you had the name change yet? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response and all of your helpful tips. No action on the name change yet. I'll just wait that out. Regards, Suburban Express President (talk) 05:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony, a reproduction of a copyrighted article on a third party's website is a copyright violation. Our rules are quite clear: we don't link to copyright violations. Additionally: in this era of Photoshop, we do not consider a purported scan of any document as a reliable source, especially when there is potential conflict of interest involved. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

COI issues aside, what's wrong policy-wise with a scan of a hardcopy newspaper article? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HOWEVER: there is not, never has been, and (I hope) never will be, a rule that a source can only be cited for a Wikipedia article if it is available online. Properly formatted citations, with no URL, would have been the way to go. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to confess, this has really left me scratching my head. Wiki rules do not allow me to edit the Suburban Express page. So I do not have the ability to cite sources which I have in my possession. The sources are not available to anyone who does not have access to 20+ year old News Gazette and Daily Illini Articles, and they do not appear online at either newspaper or at Newspaperarchive.com. So I can't edit with them, and others don't have access to them.

I've offered up the sources in a way which is extremely unlikely to have any adverse impact on anyone, and which is, in the opinion of an IP-expert attorney, "fair use", just as much as printing an article from a microfilm machine is. That argument was slapped down immediately, a putting Wikipedia foundation at risk. I don't buy that a 20+ year old article on my website, linked only from a talk page, creates a risk for anyone. But I'm trying to play along.

To that end, I contacted three newspapers today. One readily granted approval, two did not immediately respond. When I posted the fact of the first approval on Wiki, I was met with more resistance - a demand that I not only obtain permission, but that I publicly display a signed letter from the newspaper, granting permission.

As if all that isn't frustrating enough, now there is a suggestion that anything that does wind up making its way to the talk page will be fraudulent.

I won't say what I think about all this, because I do not want to offend.Suburban Express President (talk) 03:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That'd be for the best then. You can cite those news reports, just don't link to them. Paste the following into where you want the footnote marker (^[28]) and add the relevant details after the = signs:

<ref>{{cite news |last= |first= |date= |title= |newspaper= |location= |publisher= |accessdate= }}</ref>

(last=author's last name, first=author's first name). --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't cite them because I can't edit the article because of a COI. Catch-22. Suburban Express President (talk) 03:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you propose something on the talk page, you can add your citation to that. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good news - we have obtained copyright release from the three relevant newspapers. I'll be posting links to articles on Suburban Express talk page once username change is completed. Hopefully, that will help with the balance problem. Suburban Express President (talk) 18:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Available?

I'm logged into Skype at the moment, FYI. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 11:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Sorry. Nope. I've had very little time online. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes clarification request archived

Hi Anthonyhcole, the infoboxes clarification request you initiated has been closed and archived. The Committee clarified that acting on behalf of a restricted user to breach a restriction is WP:PROXYING and so is not permitted. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blausen Images

Hi Anthony, with reference to your feedback below on my talk page: Just dropping by to thank you for the donation of all these awesome medical illustrations. I'm discussing with others the possibility of linking to Blausen Medical in the captions of your illustrations. It's not something we typically do, but I'm hoping we can do it in this case, as an acknowledgement of your generous donation. This place is very conservative, though. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Were you able to confirm if we can add hyperlinks directly under our images? Thanks BruceBlaus

Hi Bruce. No I wasn't. The relevant discussion is archived here. Basically, we do that kind of thing for Rembrandt and other dead famous people, but not usually for living non-superstars (though you're a superstar to me).

The context is that we are constantly besieged by people wanting to leverage us to promote themselves, products or services. Consequently the project has adopted a very conservative (pathological in my opinion - but understandable) defensive stance toward anything remotely promotional. I truly believe it would be appropriate in this case but I can understand the reticence of my colleagues. In this place the slippery slope is alive and well, and if we allowed this in your case, it will likely multiply the hoards of less worthy others demanding equal consideration. A blanket "no" rather than the exercise of discretion may be the only possible option in a very stretched crowd-sourcing environment.

"Besieged" is the right word for what's happening here. We have a diminishing number of active volunteers trying to impose neutrality and quality on an ever-growing number of articles, so we default to simple, sometimes brutal, norms just to minimise the amount of discussion and deliberation.

I love your images. They are just what Wikiproject medicine needs (You wouldn't have an awesome image of the insular cortex by any chance?

). I earnestly hope you'll keep donating despite this intransigence. If that's not possible, thank you so much for what you've done.

I have almost nothing to do with image uploading so can't offer much advice in that department, but do make sure the "details" page - or whatever it's called - that people open when they click on a thumbnail has a clear and prominent link to your site. I suppose anyone wanting to contact the creator will click on the thumbnail. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:57, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Homeostatic imbalance

Hi Anthony. I just noticed you took out a paragraph on homeostatic imbalance in the Homeostasis article on the grounds that the citation was 'too old'. I'm curious why you felt that was necessary? The paragraph seemed to me to be relevant and accurate, and 1984 hardly seems to be too ancient for reference, and nor am I aware of any more recent research that renders the statement obsolete? DaveApter (talk) 12:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dave. That textbook is now in its 8th (2009) edition, and I'm assuming a great deal has been written on homeostasis and disease in the last 25 years. Do current textbooks still hold the view that noxious stimuli or a breakdown of the homeostatic response are the only cause of disease? (I don't know.) With biomedical information we try to cite recent sources where available per WP:MEDDATE. If I've made an obvious error in deleting that, feel free to restore it, but please do so with a more recent source: that would reassure me and other readers that the article is reporting current, mainstream biomedical scholarly consensus. Thank you for asking, by the way.

--Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Anthony - I'll see if I can check whether the current edition makes the same assertion. I'm not a medical expert but I would have expected that more recent findings would be in the nature of filling in detail rather than overturning the basic position on that point. Incidentally, I didn't read the quote as claiming that 'noxious stimuli or a breakdown of the homeostatic response are the only cause of disease' so much as that one or other of these would be present in a diseased condition. DaveApter (talk) 15:49, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I may have misinterpreted "It is only when the stimuli become more severe, or the response of the organism breaks down, that disease results" then. Mmm. I don't know. When I look at that quote I'm left wondering, really, just what is the point being made. If you intend restoring it could you possibly make it a bit plainer what's being said? I fear that quote is missing some very important context, and tired addled readers such as myself are prone to misreading it. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:06, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's not very well expressed and prone to misinterpretation, but it would be absurd it that was the claim. For instance there's no serious dispute that invasion by a virus is the cause of influenza, but development of the disease always involves a breakdown in the operation of one or more homeostatic systems - temperature regulation for a start. I'll concentrate on lower-hanging fruit in improving the article for the time being and probably come back to this one later. Thanks for your comments. btw, I'm an engineer not a medical expert. DaveApter (talk) 10:27, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've got no medical expertise either but, yes, it struck me as absurd, too. I'm very pleased to see you taking that article on, and would really appreciate it if you could give me a hoi when you're happy with it. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amph analgesia

Figured I'd notify you since it came up a while back. I recently found and used the Westfall source (quoted sections are highlighted in the pdf) from this page to re-add the statement we discussed a month or two ago. I added it to physical effects instead of performance enhancing though. Regards, Seppi333 (talk) 22:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Only a slight effect. That's surprising. Anyway, thanks for finding that. Can you tell me which page of Goodman & Gilman you're using? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually not sure what the book pages are - I omitted them in current the amph page because the online version doesn't indicate those. The original reference to the material from this section was just the chapter 12 page range (copied from an older amphetamine page): Westfall DP, Westfall TC (2010). "12: Adrenergic Agonist and Antagonists". In Brunton LL, Chabner BA, Knollmann BC. Goodman & Gilman's Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics (12th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. p. 277–334 (I think that's all of chapter 12 at least). Seppi333 (talk) 03:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is so annoying about some ebooks. It makes it impossible to effectively cite them. What I've done when confronted with that situation in the past is quote them in the citation, using the |quote= parameter like here. But in your case, where you're using the same source repeatedly, that may get into copyvio territory. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:29, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've already used the quote parameter a lot on that page. Also, can you elaborate? Seppi333 (talk) 20:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

coffee

havent forgotten post hong kong, just been far too busy. hope we can before christmas. satusuro 02:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. I'd love that. (Are you going to London?) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

haha sounds like a childs rhyme, email me :) satusuro 02:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NIH contact

That's great! There sure is. Contact me by email so I can put you in touch via email? You can email me via my blog. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hildabast (talk • contribs) 13:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail, Hilda. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Skype?

Now? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 08:50, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Argh. No. I've lent my Samsung Note to a neighbour until Tuesday, and I can't get Skype to work on my new Dell XPS. (Note to self: sort that out.)

Shall we have an email chat? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from watching Gerda

I was called to ANI yesterday, looked around there and saw nothing I could help. Like you, Anthony, I noticed the article by watching talk pages, had (and have) no time to look at old discussions, and made one comment, voting for the name as simpler. I think such things should not be decided by "consensus" but validity of arguments, I had no intention to fight the move. Why was I called to ANI. As for the name, I think if Holloway needed to be moved, we should think about renaming Adriana Lecouvreur to Opera on Adriana Lecouvreur and Mona Lisa to Painting of Mona Lisa, because the way it is, readers might expect a biography, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:17, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By all means continue the naming discussion on the article's talk page. I'm open to persuasion, but so far I'm convinced by Moonriddengirl's argument, which I think I quote on that talk page. (I've now read all of the arguments.) Perhaps a well-structured, widely-advertised RfC is in order. Kww could lay out his argument clearly (essentially a copy and paste from earlier iterations probably) and I and others could formulate a concise rebuttal - followed by discussion and/or !voting. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will do so but really did not want to increase the heat there, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a lot happening around that article right now. Perhaps coordinate the timing with Wehwalt who is preparing it for FAR, and choose a time that suits him, if, indeed, he's in favour of taking it to an RfC. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I placed the comment (reluctantly) at the end of the talk discussion. - I didn't coordinate with Wehwalt and don't plan to do so. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ps: I am interested in witchhunt ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Gerda was being sarcastic. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

sar·casm [sahr-kaz-uhm]

noun

1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.

2. a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark: a review full of sarcasms. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:56, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I feel like being sarcastic but swallow it, sometimes I am sarcastic, but here I simply and factually made the connection to my translation of Grace Sherwood to German, a woman recognized innocent 300 years after her ducking, an article not wanted on the English Main page as TFA, shown on the German Main Page to almost 30k viewers. The translation was one of the many things that QAI does. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda: Sorry, looked like sarcasm to me. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For a bit of witch and a bit of entertaining sarcasm, the suggestion of a user name for me, not by me (my talk): User:Gerda the Notorious Infoboxen wikiCriminal, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You made summer in winter, thank you, made my day, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:33, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pleased to be of service! --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:40, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Today, 22 December, is the day that BWV 132 was first performed, composed for the fourth Sunday in Advent. I wrote that as DYK years ago and - on the occasion - show it (together with Summer Leys) on my user and talk. Compare ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:13, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Anthonyhcole. You have new messages at Thewolfchild's talk page.
Message added 18:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

- ^theWOLFchild 18:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Thewolfchild#Correction Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of National Institutes of Health Common Fund

The article National Institutes of Health Common Fund has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable. No evidence of awards or in depth coverage in independent reliable sources.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:53, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

e-mail re NIH

Hello, Anthonyhcole. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Hordaland (talk) 13:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 15:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invite to write a page on magnesium and depression. I know more about it than anyone else. However, I don't think that Wikipedia is a proper forum for research. I have had nothing but grief from editors. I have more to do than deal with you guys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgeeby (talk • contribs) 03:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Management of depression, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Remission (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

POV COI of Marian Dawkins

You mention on the talk page, you don't remember calling other spams, here is the link, it will help you remember what happened: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anthonyhcole&oldid=578680204 have a nice day 124.170.240.130 (talk) 21:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks for the reminder. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want me engage with you, please create an account. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I explained here one major reason I don't like an account: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:AslanEntropy#Thank_You 203.158.46.246 (talk) 04:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removing long standing material

That material has been in there through multiple reviews: peer review, FAR review, more reviews than you can count. It's been heavily discussed during them as well. By removing the only statement that indicates that no fault was ever leveled against either party, you are leaving something open to conjecture that need not be left open to conjecture. No fault was ever leveled by either party. We know that. It's improper to leave the issue hanging and thus imply that fault may have been leveled.

You've also broken the chronology: the subsequent mention of the divorce is after the article has already discussed actions taken after the filing.—Kww(talk) 06:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copied to Talk:Natalee Holloway#Mother's second divorce. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment at Talk:Natalee Holloway

In my view is a personal attack. You make accusations of lying and threaten sanctions and you have not even read through the archives yet. Please withdraw all parts of your comment in which you accuse others of improper conduct.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You say I threaten sanctions but have not even read through the archives yet. Well that's wrong and you know it. I threatened sanctions if your pattern of falsely claiming consensus continues to the present. That is, any request for sanctions is contingent on what I find in the later archives. So, you're making out to anyone who reads your second sentence that I'm drawing conclusions without reading all the evidence, when you know that my conclusions will depend on what I find in the later archives. What do you call what you just did there? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then there should have been no difficulty about waiting, to state your conclusions when they were fully and fairly drawn. So you say "you're a liar in less I find out you're telling the truth later" is poorly done and should be avoided because it pisses other people off. --Wehwalt (talk) 08:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You misrepresented the consensus on the article's name up to October 2008. If that pattern has continued up to the present - and a brief perusal of the current talk page is not promising - I will be seeking appropriate sanctions on those involved. If the pattern of ownership displayed by you, User:Kww and others up to October 2008 has continued up to the present I will be seeking appropriate sanctions for that, too. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is as false as your representation that us plural have been guilty of misconduct.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The thread is here. MastCell ^Talk 21:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Expert review

I like the discussion you have kicked off on Jimbo's talk about expert review. I won't participate there, for reasons you are aware of, but I did want to say that, as I have said elsewhere, if the Foundation has millions of dollars to spend (and it does), that money should be spent on facilitating such expert review as you suggest (not just on medical articles, but those would be a priority), rather than giving chapters millions of pounds to spend on things like sending Wikipedians to pop concerts as accredited photographers, or Wikipedians in Residence serving tourism interests. This is a case that should be made in public, really, rather than on the talk pages of Wikipedia. There should be a public debate about it. I would suggest to you and your Wikiproject Med Foundation colleagues that you think about how you can move this discussion into the public sphere at the earliest possible opportunity. We can discuss this further by e-mail, if you like. Best, Andreas JN 466 14:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy on-wiki. First, there is a diversity of opinions about my proposal among medical editors, as you can see. If we achieve some kind of unity, I'll send a proposal to the board, to see where they stand. If they're opposed, then yes, there'll be no point in struggling through the grant application processes, etc and other means will be necessary. On its face, this aligns 100% with the WMF's mission, so I'm moderately optimistic. Please don't unleash the hounds until they turn me down. If they turn me down, hand me that megaphone.

On another matter, I mentioned a private chat a while back. It involves someone else's problem and I don't have the concerned person's permission to discuss it. If that changes, I'll email you. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've invited sj to the conversation. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cancer pain now has a medical disclaimer at the top of the article.[18]. That came out of this discussion. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The timing of launching it on TS was because TS has not yet run WP:TFA-- which woulda been a nice additional effect. But whatevs ... we'll see how it goes! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:46, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gaaa. Oh well. Yes, the horse has bolted. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:00, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo dropped out of the conversation very early on. I invited Sue, sj, David, MastCall, Fiachra, SlimVirgin, Eric and Tarc to comment and none did.‎ Look at the discussion at Wikipedia talk:MED#Medical disclaimer. Moral norms may have to be imposed from without on this community. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't really think of anything non-generic to add that wouldn't have already been said repeatedly tl;dr there's a non-trivial case for a disclaimer, but there's a non-trivial case against in-article disclaimers (that don't say "help fix this") at all; insert detailed arguments for and against - David Gerard (talk) 12:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is that non-trivial case against disclaimers? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

You could only ask that if you consider all the arguments that others have raised against your idea so far "trivial", which is not the sense I meant it in. Tapping out now. You have fun - David Gerard (talk) 16:32, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're wrong but not sure because I didn't really understand what you just said. You said above there is a non-trivial case against in-article disclaimers. Can you tell me what that non-trivial case is? (This disclaimer idea is not mine. I first saw it mentioned a couple of years ago by User:SandyGeorgia, and she is championing the idea now. My contribution to this discussion is scholarly review.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've been tied up in RL stuff lately, so I have just had time here for quick reverts of vandalism or nominating (futilely, it appears) obscene WP:Acronyms for deletion. The idea is sound, as there's potential for actual physical harm if a medical article here contains unproven or untested advice. But how do you jibe it with WP:5PILLARS, namely the "anyone can edit" ideal? The purists will be a big bureaucratic mass to overcome. Tarc (talk) 13:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean for a second that you or the others I pinged were under any obligation to read or comment. I'm pointing to the difficulty of bringing change here, I suppose. And I certainly don't think you're part of the problem. Though you can be very difficult. I actually have an elegant answer to your question but I'm tired and will go on. I've said it concisely somewhere. I'll paste it here later. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Tarc:, the easy answer is that "Wikipedia is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with creating an encyclopedia." Policy already provides for constraining the "anyone-can-edit" ideal where necessary. Anthony, I really regret not spending more time and effort on both of your initiatives (expert review and the medical disclaimer). They're both important to me, but I've just not had the energy recently to say anything thoughtful or useful. I trust your leadership on these issues - in fact, I'd vote for you as Benevolent Dictator in a heartbeat - but I agree with you that these sorts of things will need to be imposed top-down somehow. You can't crowdsource this stuff, especially not with a community as immature as ours. MastCell ^Talk 19:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc: Sandy and I are both arguing for a disclaimer. I'm additionally arguing for scholarly review and locking reviewed articles between reviews (outlined here). If that's the model you're referring to, I don't see any conflict with "anyone can edit." Editing is a collaborative process and everyone is welcome to collaborate. I don't think that pillar insists on instantaneous publication - especially when a delay serves our readers best. I'm not saying a panel of scholars can veto an article. I'm saying the editors/writers should collaborate with their reviewers and arrive at consensus. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Anthony - the discussion was archived before I got around to commenting. For what it's worth, I'd support the idea of medical disclaimers and, if possible, expert peer review. FiachraByrne (talk) 13:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Fiachra. The disclaimer is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:MED#Medical disclaimer and is opposed by JFW (founder of WP:MED) and James (chair of m:WikiProject Med Fondation).

I've agreed to a "trial" there. I'm having second thoughts on that, though. We don't need a trial to know that a prominent disclaimer is needed on our medical articles now. Just look at the opposition to it in that discussion. From "medical" editors. I am genuinely heartbroken by this nonchalance. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm unaware of the back-ground to all this I'd suggest it might have been politically savvy to have gotten James on board prior to making the proposal publicly. Further, the wording should have been thought through so as to minimize the impression that the work of many decent editors was being undermined by the addition of a disclaimer. Thus, perhaps, the disclaimer could have followed the more proforma wording available on many sites ("does not constitute medical advice" etc). Finally, and I hope you'll forgive the critique, your rhetorical approach - in this and other discussions - often appears to work against your evident goal of reaching consensus on a given proposal. Stating that other prominent and influential editors are morally bankrupt or that the discussion would be better served if they left it, is self-defeating and will alienate people from your cause (By way of contrast, User:SandyGeorgia is blunt but her invective - outside of some rather long-running disputes - is never so highly personalised, at least to my eyes). Nonetheless, I support the proposal and will comment on that thread this evening. FiachraByrne (talk) 13:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll definitely consider what you've said about my approach in this instance and generally. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FiachraByrne, in my view, Anthonyhcole's frustration is understandable. We actually were trying to approach the thing with some careful deliberation on Alanyst's talk page, when a third party jumped the gun and installed a template. It was my view then, and now, that we would need a slower approach to this, time to find out who was on board, time to refine the wording, etc-- but it went forward too soon. I hope that hasn't entirely doomed the proposal, but I also think the other docs on board are big enough boys to allow for occasional differences leading to frustration. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken Sandy. I'm largely uninformed of the relevant background and context, as I said, and, regardless of my critique, I definitely don't want to dissuade Anthony from pursuing this or similar proposals. It's very important for the ethical integrity of the content itself that readers are given sufficient notice of its limitations. To argue that this disempowers readers, as occurs at one point in that discussion, is perverse. FiachraByrne (talk) 18:22, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had offered up Tourette syndrome (FA) as the test case, because I'm pretty much the only editor there, and I wouldn't be offended at all by a disclaimer (I am Spartacus ... ummmm ... RandyfromBoise). This was to address the argument of offending editors. Because TS hasn't yet run TFA (waiting for me to do some citation upgrading to most recent sources), it would still make an interesting long-term project; that is, can we get the test template installed on mainpage day. We will live to fight another day :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok, that seems like a good way to introduce a test case. Nice article by the way.

The only caveat I'd offer is that I'm not sure if your attitude to a disclaimer is likely to be typical. It might even be the case that most non-expert content writers would be more sensitive than expert ones to a disclaimer that appeared to undermine the status of their work (and by implication, I guess, their online status/identity/authority). In my vague recollection of an exchange that you partook of relating to some WP award for DYK articles (admittedly, DYK may be a "special" field) you were quite opposed to "editors" receiving any recognition and stated, I think, that you exchanged or offered to exchange your own "WP of the day" award with some other contributor so little did recognition of that type matter to you. I'm guessing - although my knowledge of WP culture is pretty limited - that such an attitude is unusual amongst most editors. In fact, I'd conjecture that a lot of both negative and positive behaviour on WP is driven, at least in part, by the need for recognition/attention.

The wording of the disclaimer, in my opinion, is tricky as you've got to communicate clearly and succinctly to a diverse readership that the content has limited authority and at the same time soften the blow for editors who have invested heavily in improving an article or whole content areas. Some of this content is, of course, of a really high standard and one can appreciate why some editors don't want their efforts disparaged in any way. Perhaps if the first statement of the disclaimer was a positive one? ("Every effort has been made etc ..., but WP medical content may contain errors and should not be taken as or in place of qualified medical advice ..."). Ultimately, the disclaimer is more important that anyone's ego but you're hardly likely to get it instituted without some concession to the psychological needs of editors.FiachraByrne (talk) 23:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you've identified a real problem with the "reward-driven culture" of Wikipedia, but somehow, I (perhaps naively) thought the medical crowd was above that, and they would accept a disclaimer. :/ Nice idea on putting the positive first. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt anyone's entirely above that need - I'm certainly not. Good luck with the proposal and please ping me if there are further discussions. FiachraByrne (talk) 00:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fine analysis. Thank you. I think we're getting close to consensus with version CL, proposed here by Cas:

Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC on a prominent medical disclaimer is now open. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ennui

Hi Anthony, I must be suffering from ennui myself. Following a clean up of snakestones, I irritably ventured to Alternative medicine and entered as the 2nd sentence:

'Alternative medicine' includes treatments that have not been proven to work (other than by the Placebo Effect); by contrast, practices consisting only of treatments that have been proven to work are known as 'Medicine'.

I wonder if this will stir up a hornets nest?

cheers, John - BenevolentUncle (talk) 23:31, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaargh. You're a braver man than me. There are some very experienced eyes on that article, so they won't let you do anything out of order. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:33, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I reverted that BenevolentUncle! For the lead, in particular, I'd suggest getting "consensus" on the talk page - and that will be a long and possibly frustrating processes, I'm afraid. Alt med is pretty nebulous and hard to define in a neutral, non-polemical fashion that retains any content. I guess the major objection to the definition which you offered - a variant of which is included in the Terms and definitions section of that article - is that it would exclude a fair proportion of "mainstream" medicine from "medicine" as not all procedures, practices, therapies and theories of "mainstream" medicine are or have been proven to work [19]. Many surgical practices have also been critiqued as lacking a solid empirical basis. The definition would also exclude a lot of historical practices from medicine. Insulin coma therapy for schizophrenia may have been experimental but it was certainly a part of modern medicine and was in no way an "alternative" treatment according to our understanding of the term. The problem is that most definitions are, to some, degree ideological - they are part of the dispute and stake a position within it. FiachraByrne (talk) 23:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries FiachraByrne, when I sat down to write justifications for my mod, I realised it wasn't sustainable, so despite my enjoyment of Tim Minchin's song Storm, this couldn't be justified on wp. (Anthony, sorry to go off at half cock.) fwiw, something like the following modified version might be worth putting in the lead after the 1st sentence, although I have not thought thru how it integrates with the rest of the lead and/or whether it is worthwhile:

'Alternative medicine' includes treatments that have not been proven to work (other than by the Placebo Effect); by contrast, 'mainstream medicine' or 'conventional medicine' aspires to only use treatments that have been proven to work.

The Talk page arguments could be:

I think the introduction should contain a summative overview of facts referenced in the body of the article.
One of those facts is that 'Alternative Medicine' is used to describe practices that include treatments that have not been shown by scientific method to work (other than by placebo effect).
The term 'Alternative Medicine' implies the existence of a 'mainstream/conventional Medicine' which is understood by the majority of English speakers to refer to proven treatments whose efficacy is monitored by government licencing and regulation.
I suggest that 'proven' is (in the context of medicine, especially wp:med) equivalent to secondary sources based on peer-reviewed primary sources, i.e. the embodiment of scientific method. I do not think that alternative versions of 'proven' (such as opinion or religious faith or tradition or 'anecdotal evidence') can be accepted, especially in the NPOV environment of wp.
Given that readers may turn to wp for info re very costly life & death decisions, I think it is of great importance that readers understand that Alternative Medicines include treatments that have not been proven to work.
Therefore I think this essential information should appear early on the the introduction.

However, I haven't got time to push this now. If anyone wants to do something like it, please feel free. Cheers all,

BenevolentUncle (talk) 00:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You raise some valid points but it might be best if we took this to the talk page of the relevant article. FiachraByrne (talk) 01:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Fiachra, I realise that the talk page would be more appropriate, but I didn't want to start something there unless I have enough time to see it thru, which I won't have for a while. BenevolentUncle (talk) 07:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Sorry for the delay. I just can't bring myself to work on alternative medicine articles. It doesn't interest me sufficiently, it's very intense and it involves a lot of reading for a relative novice like me. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

Anthony, I am extremely concerned about the tone you are taking in the discussion on WT:MED. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and you seem to be taking our disagreement on disclaimers way too personally. I don't understand why you characterise my view as "morally bankrupt" or see cause to downplay my contributions ("JFW [go] back to whatever it is [you do]").

I have no desire to allow this to escalate, but I want to find common ground and continue collaborating in the spirit of mutual respect. JFW | T@lk 13:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I apologise. I do see the question of a clear disclaimer at the top of all our medical content as a moral one - but it is unreasonable for me to condemn people who don't share that view. And my, "whatever it is you do" comment was thoughtless, insulting and completely undeserved. Sorry. Obviously, I'm exceedingly annoyed by your response, but that is no excuse.

I hope you will forgive me in time for this lapse, and that we will find a way to work together in future. Thank you for coming here. (Off to James's.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mate, really appreciate that. No hard feelings. JFW | T@lk 14:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Civility Barnstar
		To Anthonyhcole, for gentlemanly conduct. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your most recent comments. Best wishes. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please strike

Please strike the comment you made to me at WP:ANI, where you mischaracterized what I said and what I believe. Feel free to state your own position without mischaracterizing mine. We don't block admins for tool abuse. We talk to them, and if necessary start an RFC or ArbCom case. Admins may be blocked for editing violations such as disruptive editing or edit warring.

Let me explain why we don't block for tool abuse. If Admin A is a jerk with the tools, and Admin B blocks A, then quite predictably A's friend Admin C comes along to lift the block and instead blocks B for being a douche, we get into a vicious cycle. The best way to prevent a vicious cycle is not to make the first move. Jehochman ^Talk 15:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it true that admins may not block admins? I doubt it. Can you point me to where it says that in the rules?

As for your reason why, are you really such stupid, arrogant tools that you can't be trusted to leave a reasonable block in place if it's imposed on one of your own with strong support from the editing community? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to talk that way, please refrain from interacting with me further. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 16:23, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RFC draft

Anthony, when you have a moment can you assure that the mistake named in the Boston Globe example at the top of User:SandyGeorgia/Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/RFC on medical disclaimer is actually a mistake? A citation to text viewable by editors reading the RFC would be grand. My google searches yield ... conflicting information, over my head. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The assertion is: Hyperventilation can result from metabolic alkalosis/acidosis [20]

Sharma & Kaushal (2006) say

hyperventilation raises arterial pH (alkalosis), hypoventilation lowers arterial pH (acidosis)
metabolic alkalosis is compensated for by hypoventilation

So I expect metabolic acidosis is compensated for by hyperventilation, and the medical students' edit is supported by this source. Bed time here. I'll check a few more textbooks tomorrow. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:16, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's confirmed by Posner & Frew (2007), and the clearest expression so far is in Baboolal (2003): "In metabolic acidosis, a low arterial pH is associated with ... compensatory hyperventilation..."

So, I'm confident the students got it right. The error was introduced on 7 December 2012 and corrected by the students on 11 February 2013. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:52, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony, you put your Support on the version I oppose ... I think that was a miss, and you meant to add it under Section A? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is that better? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, all good now! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas, Sandy: Jimmy is on board. [21] --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good. He does have a point, in that the graphical design of the presently proposed version A disclaimer is very clunky. You could probably change some of the objectors' minds by coming up with a more elegant version. Andreas JN 466 12:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I don't have the skill - or know anyone who does - to do it though. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This looks a bit more snazzy and dignified. Andreas JN 466 17:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Season's greetings from Santa and her little helpers

Thank you Bish! Same to you. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Season's greetings

Hi Anthony, just a note to wish you everything good for the holidays and a Happy New Year. (Sorry, no fancy card.) :) All the best, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:19, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And to you, you awesome Wikipedian. I took the exercise advice you gave me a few months back and am finding it extremely helpful. So thank you. I hope you're doing well (and taking your own advice!). --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really glad that helped, and you're very welcome (and no, I'm not taking my own advice). :) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your call of course but... it's good advice. Be well. Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:07, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony, you've got mail. Best, and season's greetings, --Andreas JN 466 17:54, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:07, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question

i am new to this site and i dont know how to reply to someones talk response. can you help me please? Have a good new year. and how are you? (Mudak568 (talk) 02:28, 1 January 2014 (UTC)) Mudak568 (talk) 02:28, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mudak568. I am very well, thank you! And all the best to you for the new year.

Usually, reply to someone on the page where they left their comment. Write their name as I did yours here: [[User:Mudak568|Mudak568]]

or like this: {{reply|Mudak568}} which looks like this: @Mudak568:

Either of these will trigger the little red notification box at the top of Wikipedia pages for them like this:

, so they'll know you've responded and where. No need to do that if you're replying on their "user talk page". Any comments left on an editor's own talk page will trigger a notification including the orange rectangle "Talk: You have new messages".

Welcome to the project. Don't hesitate to ask if you have any other queries. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

intractable pain

Hi -- if you get a chance could you take a look at intractable pain (a newly created article) and Talk:Intractable pain, and give an opinion about them? Regards, Looie496 (talk) 02:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look in about 4 hours. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Looie, I've just got home and I need to have a nap. I've never seen intractable pain treated like this (as a class) before but it probably deserves to be and there's a lot I haven't seen. Most of that article seems to stem from one author, though - the editor of the journal Practical Pain Management. For us to cover it we'll need to demonstrate wider coverage in independent reliable sources. Catch you later. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I would nominate it for deletion but the few times I've done that I've managed to stuff it up. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No!!

My fault: [22] should have posted on talk page not a user talk =D Lesion (talk) 05:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the good news is that just about everybody who's anybody is in there now, so edit conflict away !!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I still haven't clicked save, just noticed this on watchlist. Still in denial ;p Agree with what was removed, however I think it would be good to use 2 main sources for the features: the international association for the study of pain's classification of chronic pain 2nd ed (revised) and the international headache society ICHD-2. There is going to be a lot of variation in the signs and symptoms in all sources, might be best to stick to these international groups... Lesion (talk) 05:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doh! Sorry Lesion. I'm very happy with you supplanting that textbook with the IASP and IHS. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comrade

Hey comrade how are you? Mudak568 (talk) 14:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Defying the odds, I'm not too bad. And you? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

im pretty bad actually.I currentally have broken ribs. (Mudak568 (talk) 15:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Avoid coughing and laughing. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure will, id avoid breathing too if it was at all possible. Some guy and his comrades decied they didnt like the look of me so they decied to beat me up...thats how i ended up with broken ribs. (Mudak568 (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Ouch. Well, be gentle on yourself (and avoid nasty people for a while). --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ill be gentle on myself. As for avoiding nasty people ill try....to be honest im not the nicest guy myself. (Mudak568 (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC))[reply]

So try not to piss people off to the point of beating on you while you've got broken ribs, then. You might develop a taste for nice. Who knows. Bed time here. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah maybe. Have a goodnight comrade. (Mudak568 (talk) 16:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Happy New Year!

Bringing you warm wishes for the New Year!

May you and yours enjoy a healthful, happy and productive 2014!

And thank you for all you do in here!

Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability of Wikipedia

On Jimbo's talk page you suggested that Wikipedia should have "...all of its published content reviewed for accuracy by the same standard (or higher, ideally) of scholar that reviews our highest quality reliable sources." I still think, as I suggested on that page that such a standard, if taken literally, is so completely impractical that it might as well be "Wikipedia should have all of its content written by little green men from Mars". I would like it if all Wikipedia articles were reviewed in detail by professional-level scholars, but it would take the equivalent of a major university faculty or two devoted full time to nothing else to achieve this. I was serious in my reference to Nupedia It was exactly the attempt to impose such expert review that led Nupedia to fail while Wikipedia, originally intended merely as a feeder for Nupedia, to become what it is today. I don't see how we could remain 'the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit' while attempting to adhere to the standard you articulate.

That is not to say that increased accuracy and quality are not desirable, nor that there may not be ways to achieve them. I am really curious as to how you think such a goal might be achieved, or even approached, because I think the scale of the project makes it quite impossible to achieve your goal as stated above. DES ^(talk) 19:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's an aspiration, and possibly one we'll never completely fulfill. And I'm not suggesting we jettison any articles that haven't been peer-reviewed, but that we mark them as such, and articles that have been reviewed are marked as such, with the names of the reviewers, date of the review, and an invitation to the reader to collaborate on the draft for the next review.

My hope, at least in medicine, is that the scholarly societies - the academic community - will arrange the peer review for their various specialties, and that the funds to pay the reviewers (and they'll have to be paid) will be raised by the various relevant charities whose missions involve education. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I urge you to look at what happened to Nupedia and Citizendium where something along those lines was attempted. I estimate that to make a serious attempt at doing this for Wikipedia as a whole would require the full-time effort of not less than 1,000 scholars, on an on-going basis. At current US rates, including salary, benefits, office space, computers, internet connectivity, support services and the like, this would cost at least $100 million/year if done in the US. To endow such a project, at current rates of return, would take capital of $10 billion or more. That is a large amount for the various relevant charities to raise.

To do this for only medical articles would of course be a smaller task. I am not sure how many there are, it no doubt depends on exactly where the line is drawn. I have seen estimates of 10,000 to 30,000 medical articles now on Wikipedia, perhaps you have a better estimate. To do a truly serious peer review on a significant medical article would probably take a full day of a single scholar's time. If you assume 100 scholars employed full time, this task would take 20 weeks, with 10 scholars employed full-time it would take 4 years, and this is just for a first pass, not counting reviews of changed articles and new articles. That is an expense of $1-$10 million per year, if continued, or say $5 million to have a single pass done on all medical articles. Still not trivial. DES ^(talk) 19:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with the history of Nupedia and Citizendium.

There are about 25,000 articles tagged with the WPMED template - some of which are biographies or historical. But I'm assuming we'll be submitting only featured articles for expert review, and there are presently 58 featured medical articles, and some of those will need their featured status reviewed before they go to expert review. That is, I'm talking about a process, not an overnight overturning. One more step on the road to perfection. If we find FA's rolling off the volunteer production line at a rate that expert reviewers can't keep up with (or at a rate that the education foundations can't afford to fund) well, that's a problem to yearn for, but it's not a problem I'm expecting to encounter soon. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:06, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Might it be easier to promote more loudly to medical editors the option to publish a FA in a collaborating peer-review journal? A routine template could be used for this every time one is promoted, which I agree is all too infrequent. Lesion (talk) 05:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Expert review of Medical FAs only is a far more achievable goal than review of all Wikipedia content or all medical articles. That much we might get done for little or no cost -- appropriate scholars might be willing to review a single FA on a pro bono basis, or we might be able to get scholarly societies or even the WMF to cough up enough cash for that. It could be a good place to start. From the remarks quoted above and what I have read from you elsewhere, i didn't think you were interested in a goal on that scale. I would agree with working on that goal, and i can't see any possible downside, the worst that happens is we are unable to organize the reviews. We already have an FA by Wikipedia standards, the reviews are not likely to make it any worse, and may well improve it or help it be improved. DES ^(talk) 22:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The goal is to have the whole of Wikipedia WP:RS-reliable, starting with the medical content, in five years. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That goal I still think is completely impractical, and if achieved it would inevitably lead to the end of significant additions to the project, and eventually the demise of the project. Fortunately, I don't think it has a snowball's chance of getting consensus as even a goal, or of being adopted by the WMF as part of their plans. DES ^(talk) 21:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, 5 years is very optimistic, even with the WMF's support. And given Jimmy's complete lack of interest, I'd say you're right about the WMF's likelihood of adopting the goal. As for "the end of significant additions to the project": bull shit. Most of the editors I know would be stoked to have their FA locked with an endorsement of accuracy from the field's top minds. It would be an incentive that would generate more - far more - top quality articles. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At the FA level, you might be correct about motivation. But if we seriously try to apply this to "the whole of Wikipedia" then I think it will stop contributions at the Stub, Class-C and Class-B levels dead, or nearly so, and so there will be nothing more for people working on FAs to start with. Frankly I care far less about our few FAs than the multitude of Class-B and lower articles. DES ^(talk) 01:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've lost me. How will what I'm proposing have that effect on non-FAs? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you really only intend this proposal to affect FA articles, then what I said above does not apply or not nearly as strongly, at least. But if you relaly intend this to apply to "...all of its published content" and "the whole of Wikipedia", then I stand by what I said. To me "the whole of Wikipedia" includes every article from stubs up to FAs. Indeed if every FA were to disappear tomorrow I don't think the value of Wikipedia would be greatly reduced, they form so small a proportion of the whole. If your review proposal were to never be intended to apply to articles which had not reached FA within Wikipedia without such review, my objections would be much muted, although I think I would still disagree with the lockdown aspect. Was I misunderstanding you, when i thought your eventual plan was to extend review and lockdown to every article at every level? DES ^(talk) 14:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're right. That's my aspiration - at least for topics where there are enough recognised scholars to perform the expert review. I suppose there will be topics that are too banal or too obscure to develop scholarship or expertise ... but I wonder if many of those should be in an encyclopedia. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how much PhD-level scholarship we will ever get on, say our road, bridge, and train station articles, or our high-school and town and village articles, or our many many band (music) articles, or indeed many of our popular culture articles. In any case, i think that if any very sizable proportion of our articles entered any sort of lock-down where every change needed to await scholarly review, it would be a very bad thing indeed. As long as it was limited to the small fraction of 1% that is the current FA ratio, it might be tolerable. I thing getting Expert review of articles at the FA level would be good, but I think it would be better without the lockdown, even there. DES ^(talk) 15:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, there is no way in hell a busy professional scholar will bother reviewing an article that can be transformed by Randy five minutes later. Believe me, I've been trying. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removing other users comment

Wondering about this edit? Hope all is well. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am wellish thanks. It looks like slander to me. I've mentioned it to the editor, and will leave it to others to decide what to do if he chooses to restore it. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes one need to be very careful commenting about others like that.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment deletion

Hello. Why did you delete this comment? Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:39, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I just saw the discussion at User talk:Seppi333. I'm not convinced that it is fair to characterize Seppi333's comment as "seriously impugning the man's character", but I don't intend to debate the deletion itself further. However you should have used a suitable edit summary. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is a particularly devious way to reply to me. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No deviousness intended. I'm sorry you read it that way. As you know, I believe the comment is slander, so I don't want a link to it on my talk page. That's all. It wasn't meant to reflect on you or your comment in any way. If you thought you had a link to slander on your talk page, wouldn't you do the same? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I would not, but thank you for the explanation. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Kevin Morris (26 April 2013). "Winners of Wikipedia's biggest award still haven't received prize money". Daily Dot. Retrieved 7 May 2013.

[1]