User talk:Anthonyhcole/Archive3

Stretch-activated ion channel

Hey, I'd really appreciate any help with the references. Thanks for offering help - sorry for the belated response! -Ccbowman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Sure. Can you explain exactly what the problem is. Looking at it, I can't see anything blatantly wrong. Is it a formatting problem, or do you need sources? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that I need sources, it's just that in citing them, there are lots of duplicates. The same source shows up multiple times in the reference list, maybe with each time we tried citing it? I'm not sure. -Ccbowman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Great. I can fix that. I'll get onto it in the next few days. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HFCS

That snarky comment I left in the edit summary was directed at the ip editor and not you, in case you were wondering. --sciencewatcher (talk) 14:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't noticed. Now, if only serious mainstream scholars had half the energy and motivation the POV pushers have. Did you notice this? What we're doing here is worthwhile. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

X-ray_computed_tomography

13:29, 25 April 2012‎ Anthonyhcole (talk | contribs)‎ . . (57,922 bytes) (-4,386)‎ . . (Wikipedia medical content must be supported by sources that conform to this guideline: WP:MEDRS. I.e., expert reviews and textbooks or professional/government guidelines that present current scientific consensus. Please see WP:SYN) (undo)

What is the problem exactly? Supporting sources were included. Which source is not good enough?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.177.205.166 (talk) 00:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm traveling at the moment and will comment on the article's talk page when I have a chance. Essentially, your contribution cites a lot of primary sources and other sources that are a less-than-perfect fit for WP:MEDRS. It may be that you've based your section on the structure or argument in an expert systematic review (or similar level of source) and it is simply not immediately apparent. If that's the case, can you tell me which source that is?

I'm not sure how familiar you are with the protocols here, so forgive me if this is redundant: Wikipedia's medical content is, basically, the presentation of the current scholarly consensus on a topic. Where there is significant scholarly disagreement on a point, we present that, giving due weight to all relevant views, according to their degree of acceptance. We reflect the strength of evidence for a position, where that is made clear in a scholarly overview of the topic.

We derive this (scholarly consensus, different views, strength of evidence, and due weight) from expert systematic reviews published in high-quality peer-reviewed journals, or similar expert overviews. We call such sources "secondary" sources. For a clear exposition of this method, and a description of ideal sources for this approach, see WP:MEDRS. We don't include our own conclusions, based on our own analysis of sources. Our content must be an accurate reflection of the conclusions (and sometimes the arguments) of expert "secondary" sources.

Sources for Wikipedia content discussing efficacy and safety must conform strictly to WP:MEDRS, so please familiarise yourself with that guideline, and I'll get back to you in the next 24 hours. Any discussion we have on the sourcing for that article will be predicated on our mutual agreement that it must conform to that guideline, and I'll be assuming you've read and grasped its essentials.

I probably feel as strongly as you do that we should make the safety issues very clear to our readers, and my once-through of your sources last night convinces me we're on the same page with regard to the message. But we will need to reduce the reliance on primary sources, and certainly should reduce the size of the section so that the essentials are not lost on the typical, quick, encyclopedia reader. It may be appropriate to create a stand-alone article—Safety of CAT scans or similar—and include a strong, simple clear summary of that article in X-ray computed tomography, directing the reader to the more detailed article. I'll get back to you. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

a conundrum

So many times on that AN/I page, the argument would end quickly if admins were more willing to say "yeah, I screwed up a little by overlooking X, I'm sorry." but it seems to be very hard to get that simple profession of humanity and people end up quibbling. I liked your comment a moment ago, it very much represents the true issue I think many editors have regarding admin behaviors. -- Avanu (talk) 14:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You almost never see anyone on Wikipedia conceding they were mistaken, voluntarily I mean. Pathetic really. We really need to work on the ethos here. How do you build a functional ethos? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:13, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Made a couple of minor changes to WP:ORGNAME, just curious about your 2 cents on these changes. -- Avanu (talk) 15:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Before blocking" is useful. "Such accounts should be supplanted by accounts created for individual editors" seems a bit redundant to me. Isn't that the obvious next step? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:13, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you'd think so, but I wonder how obvious it is, considering how admins typically look at it. Since they are directly told to avoid blocking these people (and seem to do it anyway), it seems that spelling out the 'obvious' next step of helping the editor create new accounts might be needed. -- Avanu (talk) 15:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh. You mean they should encourage (and help if they need it) the editor to create a new account. OK. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, carrots versus sticks. -- Avanu (talk) 15:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, also by that later addition, I was trying to remind people that the problem Wikipedia has with the CompanyWideAccount is not that it hates it per se, but that it is preferable for security and accountability if people have their own permissions, passwords, etc. In other words, "we don't hate you, we just want you to be better." -- Avanu (talk) 15:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I'm not sure it conveys that all that well though. But then again it's way past my bedtime, so it might be my brain. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some admins are upstanding wise folk who do make those admissions. We could make an addition to the standard RFA questionnaire, like "Everyone makes mistakes. Show 5 instances, with diffs and your own words, where you admitted unequivocally that you were wrong." Equazcion ^(talk) 15:41, 28 Apr 2012 (UTC)

I'd love to see that! I never go to RfA, but if you ever happen to ask that of a candidate please ping me. :) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will do :) Though I tend to keep away from RFA myself. Equazcion ^(talk) 15:47, 28 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Just realized after looking at the whole policy on usernames, that my own username would violate policy if I created it today. Under the flawed process being implicitly endorsed by some of these admins, they would ignore the grandfather clause part of username policy and block me based on the internet URL part of that policy. -- Avanu (talk) 17:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any evidence that the "grandfather clause" would be ignored in favor of any other part of the policy. You've been here long enough for people to realize that you aren't here for promotional reasons (at least, I hope -- I don't know you and haven't studied your contribs). I doubt anyone would try to block you for your username unless some related problem were to surface, and if they did, it wouldn't stand. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:55, 28 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Just because I happen to be on the page - it's not just admins, the failure and reluctance to admit errors is endemic to humanity. Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me) talks about this and it's a short, excellent read that goes a long way towards helping people acknowledge their mistakes. For fun, have a look at the comment by David Larson on this page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I love the quote in that link:

A great nation is like a great man:
When he makes a mistake, he realizes it.
Having realized it, he admits it.
Having admitted it, he corrects it.
He considers those who point out his faults
as his most benevolent teachers.
—Stephen Mitchell’s modern translation of the Tao Te Ching, in homage to Lao Tzu (ca. 500 B.C.)

--Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did minor tweaks to the other one too

Roles -- Avanu (talk) 05:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Thanks. They're both definite improvements. :) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article Feedback Tool office hours

Hey Anthonyhcole/Archive3; just a quick note to let you know that we'll be holding an Office Hours session at 18:00 UTC (don't worry, I got the time right ;p) on 4th May in #wikimedia-office. This is to show off the almost-finished feedback page and prep it for a more public release; I'm incredibly happy to have got to this point :). Hope to see you there! Regards, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 03:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Results of an RfC

Question: Where can I find the final analysis by Arbiters of Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Muhammad_images? Any help will be appreciated, thank you. Brendon ishere 06:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've answered at the RfC talk page. [2] --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Brendon ishere 07:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikibreak

Do what I do when teh dramaz is a pain in the ass - take a guilt-free wikibreak and come back when it's fun again. It's a hobby, right? So we shouldn't treat it like a job WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm *blush* enjoying the drama. I guess it's not so much drama really, as simple politics. But I really should let it go soon, as I'm in the middle of a GAR, and I have a book editing deadline looming. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well then - that's not drama, that's good solid editing (imagine this said by Wilfrid Brimely, but with a British accent). I'm guessing it's similar to my situation right now - not only is it more entertaining than my usual tasks, it's way, way more entertaining than the specific task I'm doing right now. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds familiar.

Anthony, just to let you know that Suzroundsquare now seems to have upped sticks and changed to User talk:Suzbookred. I am only saying that because that means she may have missed your comments on her previous user name's talk page. (I'm not sure actually why she was asked to change user name again ... I thought the previous one should have been fine ... but no matter.) Cheers, J N 466 20:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Was she asked to change? Good Lord. Yep, I emailed her pointing to my comment, and I've just emailed again pointing to yours and asking which user name she'd prefer we addressed. Also pointed her to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cooperation.

On the bigger issue, I don't see much recognition of a problem at Wikipedia_talk:Username_policy#WP:ORGNAME. I suspect I may be lacking a good appreciation of the realities at WP:NPP and User:Avicennasis/reports/uaa/report, though. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anthony

Just saying hello and thought I would mention something you may find interesting. If you copy and paste some of the text from the article Silent stroke, you can see a list of websites of people who have plagiarized a various portions it, mostly the lede section. Amongst them are the Journal of Pharmceutical Biology, the Australian Journal of Pharmacolgy, the East Kent Stroke Association in England, a cardiologist in New York, neurology groups in Australia and the United States, a University in India, some blogs written by doctors etc.

None of them credit Wikipedia. Nothing I have written including Silent stroke, is exactly Pulitzer Prize winning writing, but I also happen to be a stressed out screwball with a ninth-grade education. I think it's hysterical that professional with advanced degrees are plagiarizing me. Me personally I would feel like a total douche plagiarizing anybody, especially a high school dropout. What a bunch of lazy bastards. Academics don't contribute to Wikipedia, they just plagiarize it.

Anyway since some of my writing is in a couple of medical journals I guess I can use myself as a reference. Talk to you later. 7mike5000 (talk) 20:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I'm jealous. I only get plagiarized by bloggers! For every author that publicly plagiarises you there are thousands of researchers, teachers, students and practitioners that have been quietly influenced by you. That's what all the passion is about. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Anthony, I'm not doing anything on Wikipedia for now because I've curtailed my internet time; I'm trying to pull my head out of *ss. It's been stuck up for a very long time, and I need air. Anyway.....

Plagiarism is supposed to be the most sincerest form of flattery. Of course it's an ego-stroke to an extent to see what I have written copied word for word on the websites of physicians and in a couple of medical journals, etc....but, It is incredibly audacious to copy somebody elses work; both Wikipedia's as an entity and mine as an individual and claim it as your own. On non-profit websites like the East Kent Stroke Association I don't mind a bit. But on a for-profit website it's kind of ballsy.

I was kind of half-tempted to contact some of them and ask for a little quid pro qou; Wikpedia provided content for your website, how about like giving something back, like an MRI of an actual silent stroke for starters and maybe a few decent x-rays of various skull fractures and um, maybe for Christmas a nice image of a pituitary microadenoma. You know like be nice and help people, instead of being selfish self-centered money-hungry *****s. And I won't tell everybody that you plagiarize medical information from high school dropouts ~~who enjoy sticking jelly beans up their nose.~~. 7mike5000 (talk) 14:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the right move there would be. I find persuasion very difficult, and strong-arm never works for me. As for useful images, I'm mystified that every professional body doesn't throw whatever resources are necessary at the top Google hits (Wikipedia articles usually) for their discipline. I'm obviously missing something. Good luck with the head extraction project, I hope the view is an improvement. Come back when it feels right. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New article?

Maybe we could have List of Wikipedia hoaxes or something similarly titled in mainspace. Then glucojasinogen could just redirect there, assuming there's an independent source for it I guess. Let me know if I'm missing something obvious with this idea. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 04:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked myself, but a couple of people have mentioned there aren't enough significant mentions of the hoax in independent public sources. I hope it stays that way for WP:BEANS. For the same reason, I'd prefer not to see such a list in mainspace. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But, provided the general notability guideline is applied to each list item, I won't oppose a list article. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cancer pain

Took the liberty of rearranging the article to fit more with pain and WP:MEDMOS. Feel free to revert if you do not approve.

Question on "Studies of patients at all stages of cancer yielded a average prevalence of 48%, ranging from 38% to 100%" Can we simply this? Maybe Approximately 48% of people with cancer experience pain at any given point in time (if that is indeed what is meant). And than what percentage experience pain at some point in time. I am always amazed at what proportion of end stage cancer patients have no pain at all.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll have a look at it later. I did some weird things with the images (linking to them via {{anchor}} from within the text) so it may need renumbering. And, yes, that's a clearer expression of my understanding of the prevalance; we don't need 38% to 100%. I've emailed the lead author of every review and chapter cited in the article, asking them to contact me if I've misread them in some way (and for any suggestions they might like to volunteer wrt the article). I think there were about twenty of them. Fingers crossed. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a little feedback and it's all thumbs up so far. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your perspective would be valued

Hi there. I would appreciate it if you could visit Talk:Muhammad. The article, Muhammad, has changed in a significant way since it originally passed WP:GA several years ago. It now states in the opening paragraph that Mohammad is the Founder of Islam and has relegated to a note at the end of the article that Muslims, themselves don't believe this. I have started a discussion on the talk page concerning this and would value your input. Thanks so much. Veritycheck (talk) 21:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't have my Wellingtons with me. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Here. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have no time for anything at the moment. I responded to Brendon on your talk page but then noticed the edit summary chat in your talk page history, and all the other shit he's involved in on this project, and deleted my comment so as not to add fuel. If I had the time I'd run an RfC. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For upholding peace in the gang-torn Wikimetropolis by discouraging the drive-by reverts -- regards, Middle 8 (talk) 09:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AN Query

You questioned when Arbcom said they wouldnt hear a case on Fae's RFA. I cant provide the diffs now as limited time, but some of them did say they would consider hearing one raised on Fae's behavior/conduct. I will take a look when I am back home tomorrow, but it should be in the declined cases.Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently easier to find than I thought. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FCase&diff=490595658&oldid=490513556 Declined comments by Hersfold & Phil in particular. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I hadn't seen that. Mmm. They're certainly not ruling out another, re-framed approach. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

God help anyone who attempts it. Whole area is toxic now from every angle/side. At least the situation has gone on long enough and in enough separate areas that you could probably populate it entirely with blue links. But the whole thing is a disgrace whenever it rears its head. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the RfC/U was appalling. I had to unwatch it in the end it was so inappropriate. That's not to say there isn't something for ArbCom to address. My view is that many !voters at his RfA were misled into believing he had gone through an RfC/U without sanctions under his old account name, and that under those circumstances he should ask the community to affirm its confidence in him. It's also my view that, should he voluntarily do so, he'll win the support of a large majority. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think it would really, but thats because I dont have as high an opinion of human nature as you do ;) Of course even the minor possibility of not getting that support is precisely why he will never voluntarily participate in any sort of re-confirmation. IMO given he (effectively) didnt participate in his RfC, better off putting that one down to bad judgement and concentrating on the conduct issues since. Regards, angry people await my judgement at work Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a principled step, one that would earn him the respect of a great many fair-minded colleagues, whatever the outcome. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Didnt have to wait long. MB has taken it to Arbcom as per the above comments on his previous RfArb.Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link me to it? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The request for that case is currently at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. (Hope you don't mind, I'm not the one you asked the question of, but I saw this question and I'd just been looking at the case you were talking about.)--Cube lurker (talk) 13:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for delay, had to give a training session this afternoon. Cubes link should work. I might have to post a comment/statement but will refrain until I am home and can be concise. I might not if someone else focuses on the specific issues before me. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the case is going ahead so I'll wait for the case, if I'm going to comment. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am torn myself. Make a statement now, or wait til evidence and have it go unnoticed in what will undoubtedly be a massive pile-on. I fear the genuine concerns are just going to be lost amongst point scoring and vitriol.Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I left a comment. [3] --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Thanks for Giving a Hoot Award

	The Thanks for Giving a Hoot Award
	Dear Anthony, I was very impressed with the quality of your arguments and your out-of-this-world patience in this discussion. Shame you don’t seem to collect barnstars. So here’s an owl. Philosophy and all that. Mad props! Draco^E 02:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, DE. Much appreciated. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:20, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of suicide crisis lines

Hi Anthony, I have been on Wikipedia infrequently and just when you think it is safe to go back in the water, the poindexters rear their ugly heads. A List of suicide crisis lines has been nominated for deletion by someone with the telling name of User:Psychonaut. Who seems to find amusement in being called a "brainless bureaucratic scumbag", "a nosy lying troll", "a holocaust denier" and "a piece of shit", amongst other names he boasts about on his page. There are two others of the same ilk who agree, one User:RepublicanJacobite who thinks he's some kind of modern day cross of Karl Marx and Leon Trotsky and another jerk-off User:Carrite who also thinks he is a communist/socialist who likes to "collect books, pamphlets, and other radical ephemera".

There is a 'list' for every stupid nonsensical subject in the world. A List of suicide crisis lines is just that a list. The snide bullshit about Wikipedia not being a "directory" doesn't hold here. It's not a List of jerk-offs who think they are communist/socialists in 2012 in the United States and are probably fat, ugly and bald and enjoy sticking foreign objects in their rectums.

I have a tendency to ruminate, being pissed about this and ruminating about it I stepped right in front of a car on Madison Street. Right there on the left hand side near where the van is parked in this picture. The guy happen to have good brakes. If I would have been hit I really have gotten angry because it would have messed up my hair.

What is written on the internet, has real world consequences, good, neutral and bad. I really don't have the patience I actually did almost get hit because I was ruminating over this. Wikipedia is losing editors and failing to attract new ones, I can't imagine why.

I don't want to get into the whole melodramatic, maudlin, waxing poetic mode. If there is a List of suicide methods there can be a List of suicide crisis lines.

Thank you for letting me share.7mike5000 (talk) 17:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well. Delete your comment. Replace it with something that's not calling people stupid. You know that the lifeblood of Wikipedia is people who are even stupider and bigger looosers than you and me, and railing against them for being ignorant cunts will get you nothing but a block. Be polite.

I'm no expert on deletion policy but I'm pretty sure that items in a list article are supposed to be notable themselves, and ideally have an article about them. So, finding sources for each item that establish notability per WP:GNG may help with your oppose argument. I won't contribute to the discussion per WP:CANVASS but will keep an eye on it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody deleted most of it anyway. As far as notability there are a slew of Wikipedia 'aricles' that should be deleted like for instance Fart lighting. The fact that there ia an article with that title is ludicrous. The individual who enjoys being called scumbag has an article he created titled List of Ultima Characters. I've never heard of Ultima, it's seems it's a computer game (figures) that overweight misanthropic people play. How that satisfies the criteria for notability yet a [[List of sicide crisis lines does not is beyond me.

A List of suicide methods is another case point. There are individual articles on various suicide methods such as Self immolation and Hanging, and they are included in the Wikipedia category 'Category:Suicide methods', so placing these methods in a list format in an separate article is not only redundant but seems pretty twisted to me. To me thats POV pushing, the POV being that suicide is okay and here's how to do it. And to make sure the suicidal person knows how to kill themselves it is of course linked in the Suicide article.

Some of these suicide crisis lines in the United States I have seen mentioned in various newspapers. I don't think it is a far stretch that those in other countries such as the UK and Australia have been covered as well.

You would think that a person with just a shred of humanity would find ways to keep that article. 7mike5000 (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I sincerely do not want to get involved with another B.S. debate with mean-spirited people like the dum-dum debate over the picture on the suicide article. I have enough of my own problems to contend with without ruminating over this, but if I say screw it then my conscience is going to bother me; so a Catch 22 for me.

All we can do is argue well and persuade. I lose more arguments than I win, but I win a few. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Cancer pain/GA2

The GA review seems to have gone moribund and has been put on hold; it's been three weeks since you last commented. Are you going to be addressing the outstanding issues soon? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. I'm travelling and will be until Thursday but will look at it after that. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Safe travels! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ opened

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 12, 2012, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 01:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm

Largest list of bright orange instructions I have seen on an arb case, yet someone still manages to ignore them and explicitly do what they say not to do. The mind boggles. I have a question though, if someone has submitted evidence and you also want to submit the same evidence - but to use it to support a different conclusion, is it best to do it entirely again? Or refer to the previous submitter? Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you're reaching your quota of diffs, I'd recommend repeating it in your submission. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldnt hit that at all either way. Thanks.Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article Feedback Tool, Version 5

Hey all :)

Just a quick update on what we've been working on:

The centralised feedback page is now live! Feel free to use it and all other feedback pages; there's no prohibition on playing around, dealing with the comments or letting others know about it, although the full release comes much later. Let me know if you find any bugs; we know it's a bit odd in Monobook, but that should be fixed in our deployment this week.
On Thursday, 7th June we'll be holding an office hours session at 20:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office. We'll be discussing all the latest developments, as well as what's coming up next; hope to see you all there!
Those of you who hand-coded feedback; I believe I contacted you all about t-shirts. If I didn't, drop me a line and I'll get it sorted out :).

Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Anthonyhcole. You have new messages at Talk:Cancer pain/GA2.
Message added 01:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The standard duration of a hold is 1 week, I'm afraid. I've set a deadline of this Friday, 8 June 2012. Allens (talk | contribs) 01:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your patience. I'm back home now and will try to get to it soon. I'm in a lot of pain at the moment, and the last thing I want to do is write about it while I'm experiencing it, but it could lift at any moment. We'll see. In the meantime I just distract myself with politics, love and frippery. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

dispute

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "X-ray computed tomography". Thank you. --79.179.224.214 (talk) 15:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your perspective would be valuable: Anti Christian Sentiment (Israel)

Hello again! There is an ongoing discussion and open RfC that I would be grateful to have your input should you feel so inclined. It's happening here and concerns Anti-Christain Sentiment in Israel. Take your time and go through the thread. Looking at the links throughout the post concerning previous edits of User:Avaya1 and myself will make the picture clear. Regards, Veritycheck (talk) 18:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

possible AE filing

Anthony, the Arbcom the Mediation and the RfC are done. None of them went your way, and I'm sorry but that's the reality of the situation. Since then you've come down with a case of the Bitter Bettys, as the saying goes, and I don't thikn we should have to put up with that from here to eternity. I'd rather not waste everyone's time going to WP:AE (on the grounds of discretionary sanctions), but I think it may be time to do so unless you strike/hat/whatever that comment posthaste. Tarc (talk) 17:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What has prompted this comment, Tarc? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you know full well what, it is your general post-Arbcom/Mediation/RfC behavior, which is becoming tendentious. "we have decided to include them, because we like to. No other valid reason" is your spiteful and wrong-headed characterization of those who did not wish to see the images removed form the article. The same junk can also be seen at Talk:Muhammad/Images, where your words over the last month or so remain. Tarc (talk) 17:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(For the record) No, actually, what I said is true. None of the six images of Muhammad at Muhammad adds anything to the reader's understanding of the life of Muhammad. There is no reason, other than "we want to", to include those images.

To respond to the thrust of your comment, that you don't like what I said to Huzaifah: if I'm misleading him in some way, prove it. Otherwise, ignore me. I wasn't addressing you. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: Tarc asked me for advice on the matter, so I'll take the liberty of butting in here): Anthony, while I personally don't think your latest posting in itself would be grounds for sanctions, and personally I have a good deal of understanding for your position, repeating such opinions on such a sensitive page over a longish period may indeed come across as unconstructive and a disturbance to the overall editing climate there. If you feel you should give newcomers an explanation in a case like this, I'd strongly recommend taking it away from the article talkpage and to the editor's user talk. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm misrepresenting the situation, I'll happily correct myself. By the way, the drama on that page, and this one, is being drummed up by bystanders such as Tarc. I made one response to a request, as did Veritycheck and Tarc. He and others chose to take issue with what I said to a third party. Can you possibly persuade Tarc to stop attacking me every time I say something he doesn't like?

A couple of weeks ago I tried to initiate a discussion about image curation at Talk:Muhammad/images but no one took me up on it. So I dropped it. Rather than simply decline to engage me, or ignore me, half a dozen editors attacked me and told me to shut up. I wasn't being disruptive. I had every right to try to initiate a discussion. If someone had wanted to take me on, we would have had every right to engage in that discussion. What staggers me is the half dozen or so "shut ups" have gone by unremarked by anyone. Now I get another spray of "shut ups". --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can hear them as "shut ups" if you want, but that's not particularly constructive. The reason that the whole case went to Arbcom and RFC was to generate a final conclusion. People reached it. It's not the one I wanted, it's not the one you wanted, but it has been reached. It's time for all of us to talk about other things.—Kww(talk) 21:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the arbitration case concluded with a ban on discussing curation of figurative depictions of Muhammad. I'll seek clarification. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification request: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow the instructions on the page and stop posting in the admins' section (no threaded discussion). Put your posts in your own section. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect this will be sufficient for you to get a block. I suggest reverting asap. I am making this suggestion in genuine hope that you don't end up getting blocked. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[4] I owe you one. It's way past bedtime here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If others agree that that post is inappropriate, it will reflect poorly on that editor, not on you. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know. I'm tired and irritable. Thanks again. 'Night. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I just want to say that I have found your work on pain articles to be very valuable, and I hate to see such a good editor get locked into a battle that can't possibly lead to useful results. That's all; regards. Looie496 (talk) 22:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This present drama is over now, I think. Just to be clear though, I'm not in a battle. I've spent the last two days answering questions and accusations from others as honesty as I can. I answered a question from a new editor, asked arbcom for clarification on a case result, and suggested that the arbs and admins radically tighten up the stewardship of their pages. That's it. I have initiated nothing else. Every other post I've made in this drama has been a response to a comment addressed to me or a clarification of a comment made about me. That's not battling, that's politeness and correcting the record. Provided others drop the stick, I think I'm ready to take on Psychology of pain now. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't driving that process over the last couple of days, I was responding to others, as was my right and responsibility. When Ludwigs2 went through the same process at Talk:Muhammad/images for a much longer period, they were able to convince arbcom that he made them engage with him. Seriously. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AFT5 release coming up - help us design a banner!

Hey all :). First-off, thanks to everyone for all their help so far; we're coming up to a much wider deployment :). Starting at the end of this month, and scaling up until 3 July, AFT5 will begin appearing on 10 percent of articles. For this release we plan on sending out a CentralNotice that every editor will see - and for this, we need your help :). We've got plans, we know how long it's going to run for, where it's going to run...but not what it says. If you've got ideas for banners, give this page a read and submit your suggestion! Many thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Behavioral Optometry

Hi Anthony, thank you for your comments. First time I have used wikipedia in this way so was not sure of protocol. Behavioral optometry is taught at post-graduate level at the University of New South Wales in Australia, at the Western School of Optometry in California and at the Southern College of Optometry in Tennessess. Agree with your comments. Peace:-) Peaceful07

No worries. The procedures here are pretty arcane. If you can see an appropriate spot in the body of the article to add the above information, do so. Perhaps start a new section after "Case studies" called "Training". Create the section heading like this, hard against the left margin:

==Training==

At the end of the sentence add each reference url between <ref> and </ref> and I'll turn them into wiki code. Ping me when you've done it.

By the way, when you've finished a comment on a user- or article-talk page, type four tildes (like this ~~~~) and your name will be autosigned with a timestamp. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

June 2012

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Radiation therapist: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Callanecc (talk) 19:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Callanecc. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Just wanted to drop a note thanking you for your diligence in watching over medical pages for vandalism and for appropriate sources. Keep up the good work! Yobol (talk) 18:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Back at you, Yobol. The work you do all over the med category is awesome. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for saying that. It's quite staggering that Arbcom can't keep their own house in order, or apparently even see the need to. Malleus Fatuorum 11:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. They're worse than the admin corps really. Good luck with that situation. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty much exactly how I feel. Malleus Fatuorum 12:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User page

Hi Anthony -- that quote from Fukuyama is nice, but it's also a serious copyright violation -- much too long for fair use. You can probably get away with a couple of paragraphs. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 20:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True. I'll trim it back. There. It's still stretching the envelope a bit but I think it's fair. I'm so thrilled with this book. I'm only a quarter into it but it's affecting me like nothing since The end of history. He writes beautifully on political philosophy, and now he's marrying that with evolutionary biology! --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Credo Reference Update & Survey (your opinion requested)

Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:

Link to Survey (should take between 5-10 minutes): http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/N8FQ6MM

It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasi^{t | c} 17:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

July 2012 Study of authors of health-related Wikipedia pages

Dear Author/Anthonyhcole

My name is Nuša Farič and I am a Health Psychology MSc student at University College London (UCL). I am currently running a quantitative study entitled Who edits health-related Wikipedia pages and why? I am interested in the editorial experience of people who edit health-related Wikipedia pages. I am interested to learn more about the authors of health-related pages on Wikipedia and what motivations they have for doing so. I am currently contacting the authors of randomly selected articles and I noticed that someone at this address recently edited an article on Pancreatic Cancer. I would like to ask you a few questions about you and your experience of editing the above mentioned article. If you would like more information about the project, please visit my user page http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Hydra_Rain and if interested, please visit my Talk page or e-mail me on nusa.faric.11@ucl.ac.uk. Also, others interested in the study may contact me! If I do not hear back from you I will not contact this account again. Thank you very much in advance. 90.210.83.229 (talk) 11:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've emailed you. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptosporidium reversion

The US CDC recommends 20 minutes of 3% hydrogen peroxide soaking of surfaces to disinfect crytposporidum-exposed surfaces and cites a 99% effective kill rate. You ought to not remove statements but merely add a "Citation needed" tag, especially if you do not know what you are talking about (as is apparent in this instance). 208.53.79.39 (talk) 22:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a vast improvement on that. Thank you so much for taking the trouble to find a good source and clarify the claim. I usually do look for verification of an unsourced efficacy or safety claim. I didn't in that case and can't remember why (it's three months and two thousand edits ago) but I'm glad you picked me up on it. Thank you. As for "citation needed" tags, I never use those for unsourced medical claims (or claims about living people) because of the harm false information may do. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for tidying up the article on dementia

Many thanks for removing the section of the article on dementia that said "Please see your regular doctor for advice on Vitamin B12 deficiency" (or words to that effect). This was clearly an in appropriate article for an encyclopaedia; as is clarified at Wikipedia: What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia is not a "how-to" manual. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 10:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. --Anthonyhcole (talk)

I provided one of the very many available studies that support the claim. On what grounds do you challenge it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.72.150.155 (talk) 16:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Can you please tell me which article you're referring to? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am referring to Chen R, Cros D, Curra A, Di Lazzaro V, Lefaucheur JP, Magistris MR, Mills K, Rösler KM, Triggs WJ, Ugawa Y, Ziemann U. The clinical diagnostic utility of transcranial magnetic stimulation: report of an IFCN committee. Clin Neurophysiol. 2008 Mar;119(3):504-32. There are many other papers and books that describe the role of TMS in the diagnosis of myelopathy. The test is used in neurology practice routinely. What is your rationale for objecting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marvaniti (talk • contribs) 17:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. That's an appropriate source. We prefer expert systematic reviews, graduate-level textbooks, professional and government guidelines and similar as sources. The web page you had been linking to didn't meet that standard. The sourcing guideline for Wikipedia medical articles is WP:MEDRS. I've restored one edit with the new source, and added the new source to the text you restored in the other article. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: BLPN

The informal standard is to provide a link to their official page, and a link to a campaign page. In many jurisdictions it's illegal for them to link campaign site from their government site. Additional links should all be available from either or both of those, including blogs, email, and social media. If we were to provide those, our versions would be subject to inaccuracy/tampering/obsolescence, whereas the ones from their own sites should always be accurate, tamper-resistant, and changed when moved. While Wikipedia is not a linkfarm, I hope this helps explain the rationale for politician contacts. Dru of Id (talk) 17:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Dru, I should have thought of that. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Filter

By glancing at your proposal, it looks like something I would support. I'll have another look later, though, before actually commenting there. Formerip (talk) 15:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, it is a good proposal and deserves a separate namespace to work on the details, which I'm more than eager to participate in. Pundit|utter 16:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Before moving off to a subpage, though, I'd like to hear more general comments on the idea-in-principle and the best place for that, for now, is probably the brainstorming page. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, even though Meta has its characteristic style of discussion, and recurring archetypes of argumentation. Pundit|utter 20:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still finding the discussion at Brainstorming quite fruitful. We could probably work on an executive summary of the proposal soonish. Once that's done, how do you feel about either moving it to User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Personal_Image_Filter or pointing the people involved in that discussion to the Meta discussion? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:21, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moving there is an option, under some catalog. It can always be created in your talk space as well. Once there is a proposal "ready" for communal discussion, naturally all stakeholders should be notified. Pundit|utter 13:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Thank you

No worries. I myself learnt about it through Wikipedia. Graham87 05:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And another thank you from me - thank you, Anthony! —MistyMORN 21:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And from me too, for this perspicuous comment. Indeed, I hope that the eventual topic ban will be a step in the right direction. --Eisfbnore ^{(下さいて話し)} 23:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm. What are we going to do about the philistines, Eisfbnore? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Underlinking

Ironically enough, I should have linked the term at the FAC. "Underlinked" simply means that there aren't enough wikilinks in a chunk of text. If you look at the Nervous system section of cancer pain, you'll see that all of the technical terms are wikilinked to help insure that uninformed readers can understand the material. Four of the six paragraphs in Legal and ethical considerations have no wikilinks at all, even though there are many phrases there that could and should be wikilinked: "sedation", "terminally ill", "analgesia", etc. Hope this helps, and good luck on your journey! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 13:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I should have realised that. Thanks again for your very useful comments. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cancer Pain

Hey - hope this finds you well. I finally got up off my gluteals and began my mutilation of your cancer pain article. Did the lead section this morning all in one edit - if you don't like anything there, please feel free to revert or tweak whatever you like, up to and including the whole mess.

If you think its worth the time and aggravation, I will do the rest of the article in the same fashion (one big edit per section) in a couple of hours, after I get back from church. I know there is no "ownership" of articles here. HOWEVER, my strong personal opinion is that when someone has put in a MASSIVE amount of blood, tears, toil, and sweat on an article, as you have, one OUGHT to defer to their judgment and taste (within the limits of accuracy, etc. of course).

In any case, hope some of that helps, but again - REVERT WHATEVER YOU DON'T LIKE, no problem whatsoever! And GREAT JOB, btw :-)

Respectfully: Cliff (a/k/a "Uploadvirus") (talk) 14:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Truly awesome, Cliff. I defined paraneoplastic syndrome [5]. I have pulled it from FAC because there is too much missing, and will be making significant changes over the next few months as I add more stuff, so you may prefer to hold off until it returns to FAC. Though, I would very much appreciate any attention you wish to lavish on it now. -- Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cancer pain

Hi, I was offline yesterday and disappointed when I saw today that you'd pulled the FAC. I just wanted to clarify that my support is based to some extent on the fact that this page will obviously be displayed prominently on a google search, and as such I liked the simplicity and clarity of how it was written. I haven't looked closely at the subsequent comments, but in my view, and in particular for medical articles such as this, sometimes less is more. I'd prefer to see the page presented with easy to digest information in a simple summary style without packing in a ton of information, if that makes any sense at all. Also, in response to the message on my talk, yes, I am considering leaving. I take it day by day. Anyway, good luck with it. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the wise words. I do intend keeping the article simple and readable. This FAC forced me back to the textbooks though, and I've realised I've missed a lot of important subtopics (most paraneoplastic syndromes, a lot of the tumor-related pain, and a lot of the acute causes). So I'll put as much of that as I can into the article and then split the extra-large sections off to sub-articles. For example, chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy deserves an article of its own (though the NCI pages are excellent).

I'll be very sad to see you leave, but if you choose to do that, you have my best wishes and gratitude. (But I hope you stay!) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the NCI pages are good. I'll need to re-read the article, but I guess in my mind, the issue is that all too often the diagnosis is problematic because the pain can result from multiple causes, i.e post-surgery lesions can cause neuropathic pain as much as chemo can, so I guess what I'm saying is that for a medical article like this that deals with an exceptionally complex issue and diagnosis, simplicity is best. I'll re-read the ethics section that was opposed. Patients do have a right to pain relief but that philosophy really varies from physician to physician and some oncologists are much more "enlightened" in regards to that point of view. Anyway, that's my perspective. I'll keep the page on my watchlist. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Truthkeeper, DO NOT LEAVE! We need you! The project needs you!

Not only that, but it's at least POSSIBLE that your leaving COULD, in theory, be "the final straw" that results in the demise of Wikipedia down the road sometime. Then, just because you quit, billions of children would be denied access to the worlds greatest free educational tool in the future. Arguably, then, perhaps tens of millions of these innocent kids would remain in poverty due to a lack of knowledge, education, and skills. Indeed, because of this, millions of them would die younger than they otherwise would, most likely.

Do you REALLY want the blood of MILLIONS of children on your hands, and yours alone? Of course you don't. So I will see you around, then? Excellent! Hasppy editing! :-)~ Regards: Cliff (a/k/a "Uploadvirus") (talk) 21:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't want the blood of millions of children on my hands. Will do my best to keep them happy and enlightened. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's this about?

[6]?

Sorry, I thought you'd you'd know who I was talking about. (I've forgotten his name.) I'll get back to you. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How's it going?

I see you've changed your user page. It makes me wonder if you're preparing for a wikibreak or to leave the project. Are you doing alright? I would have liked to have make progress on a reply to the BMJ with you by now, but as you can see with my edit history, I've been bouncing around other places. Anyhow, I replied to your post at WT:MED, and I thought I'd drop you a note. I imagined a potential letter would say "Come to the talk page of WikiProject medicine to greet us and ask for assistance" as a first point of contact. Maybe it could also include a wisely worded warning about potential pitfalls. For what it's worth, I appreicate your great work here (an example). I just started some scribbles here. Feel free to copy paste or write anything you want in there. Best wishes to you. Biosthmors (talk) 18:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I too would like to add that I appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, especially including your obvious concern for the collegiality of the editing environment, and hope that you will not be going anywhere. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. I'm not going. Biosthmors, I've lost interest in engaging with medical journals about Wikipedia while it is so hostile here, that's all. I'm still very interested in making this a place where scholars are happy to argue on our talk pages. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear. =) Biosthmors (talk) 21:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note:

I have nominated one of your pages for deletion because I don't believe it is appropriate to keep such lists on wiki. You can see the nomination at:

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Anthonyhcole/Jack Merridew

— Ched : ? 20:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saw that coming. If you are attempting to compile evidence for an Arb case or other dispute resolution forum, I would suggest keeping it as a text file on your local computer. Reso lute 20:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm not really bothered if it goes. It's just a copy and paste from the search results. (Can someone link me to the relevant deletion criterion, please?) I'm not preparing a case. Just getting to know Jack, for now. What happens after that depends on what I find. I'm quite capable of keeping an open mind. To be honest, I'm finding him quite engaging. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not planning to use the page for dispute resolution, then it would be best if you agreed to copy the material off-site. There's a general policy, one which I suspect that you would approve of, that editors aren't really encouraged to keep "dossiers" about one another unless there's a specific reason to. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I say, I'm fine with that. Can you delete it for me? I'd like to see that policy if anyone can recall the shortcut. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll delete it now, and close the MfD discussion. The policy/guideline you are looking for is actually contained in the userpage policy rather than in the deletion criteria, which is why you might not have quickly found them. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Brad. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)x2 Anthony, User:Newyorkbrad mentioned that I did not discuss this with you prior to nominating it. For that I apologize. I'd also mention that I did not WP:CSD delete it or tag it. I'd rather the community at large be allowed to weigh-in on it rather than attempt to impose some sort of rash decision on impulse. As mentioned above, there are many ways to keep links: a file on your hard-drive, bookmarks, favorites, Google Drive (formally Google Docs), OpenOffice docs, etc. If this MfD should be suspended due to my lack of discussion here - then I have no objections; although I still firmly believe it is against our common practices (if not policy). — Ched : ? 21:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the sandbox/namespace indeed has better uses than that - such dossiers may be frowned upon if you're not building a case, and you can be 100% sure people are going to keep asking about it over the next 2+ years even if you take it off today, whenever they have an opportunity. I'm not saying it is fundamentally wrong, but it definitely is not in accord with the custom. Pundit|utter 21:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's sound advice from both of you. Thank you. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) If it's any help, you'll know you've reached the end of the ArbCom stuff when you get to this page and this notice. If you research the whole history, you will indeed find Jack to be "intelligent, amusing, somewhat charming and helpful", and a lot of other things as well. I wish you well on your journey. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 21:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of reading here. :( Where's the executive summary?! --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He can also be a PITA, but then who am I to talk? ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 21:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And who am I to talk? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

YRC

It's not a matter of rudeness, the issue is that if you are eligible to respond, then so is anyone and everyone else, and then to respond to each other, and then to revisit every single issue. And that way lies madness, particularly if YRC gets provoked to enter the fray. We are done with the issue, right? Also, the discussion was closed with agreement of the original poster before you came along. I would suggest it would be better to leave things the way I did and make your comments elsewhere. TDA was just core-dumping their prior work - you are undertaking new work, and the RFC is closed. Franamax (talk) 00:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not done with it. An editor just brought a large pile of intelligent, diligent analysis to that discussion, and I would like to read it and discuss it with them. May I have your permission? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I would not like having a lot of people coming to my talk page, you can comment there if you like. I respect the desire to avoid tempting Rob to respond.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's do it at the RfC. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry, I find myself having to balance various needs here and I find that the more important need is to give a sanctioned editor an honest chance at redemption. TDA has given you an alternative, so I will restore my closure of that discussion. I in no way am trying to stifle your opinion, I'm just saying it's the wrong spot for it. TDA's talk page, or WP:AN if you really feel it necessary, please - or as always, AN or ANI if you find me heavy-handed. But that RFC is closed. Franamax (talk) 01:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure.

Devil's Advocate. Man, that's amazing. Truly excellent. Thank you. That was my impression of him. You paint well the guy that I bump into from time to time.

I'm fairly confident YRC will not breach the civility restriction, and your superb survey of his past behaviour predicts that. And I'm very confident he won't breach 1RR. I'm half-convinced the 1RR will help him in the long run by maybe forcing him to hone his rhetoric for a while. I thought the wikibreak was either too long or unnecessary but YRC didn't seem as concerned by the prospect as I would be. He seemed to think a break might do him some good; that was my reading. So, on the whole, I think he'll sail through this. Meanwhile, I'm hoping ArbCom will take a close look at X-tagging, so that when YRC gets back into BLPs, they might at least be free of that irritant. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I can trust that he won't breach 1RR because that's something that is clear and unambiguous, but the civility restriction bothers me the most. I have a hard time seeing how that will not be wikilawyered to death in order to get a site ban.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's possible. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever makes you happy

but this is arse-about-face. And re this; you might want to stop stating that Tim riley having a break is due to a particular editor. pablo 12:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remember why I did that. Undo it for now if you like and I'll restore it if I can remember why I did it. It was something about transparency.

So, User:Jack Merridew is a sockpuppet of User:Davenbelle, but the category Wikipedia sockpuppets of Davenbelle is a subcategory of Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jack Merridew. If Davenbelle predates Jack Merridew, why isn't the master category Wikipedia sockpuppets of Davenbelle? And why is his sockfarm split three ways into

I'm trying to decide if he's worth the trouble he creates here, and that arrangement makes it very difficult to see what he's done here. ~~Regarding your second point, no, because he did drive Tim off. He and several others.~~ --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have an email from Tim saying that he didn't, do you believe me? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I withdraw and apologise. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Technically they are all sockpuppets of Davenbelle, but users "of a certain age" will know him best as Jack Merridew. Another group of users know him best as Alarbus. So I think that's why it was set up that way. You will find the material on this user to be labyrinthine and near-endless, no matter how it is organised. -- Dianna (talk) 17:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That it is labyrinthine is why it ought to be clear. Should I just scoop up all the socks I can find and put them in Davenbelle, or is there some board I should go to and discuss this first? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will say it a little clearer: No matter how you try to rearrange things, the material will still be labyrinthine and near-endless. So to do so would be a waste of your time, as enlightenment will still be elusive. Your remarks below to Br'er Rabbit are a personal attack, and I suggest you withdraw them or strike them out immediately. -- Dianna (talk) 18:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is that better? I understood you the first time. I'd like to see one category with all his socks listed; and every sock declaring all the other socks. I don't think that's too much to ask. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I choose to do, however. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly do not mess with my user spaces ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are those categories in your userspace? (Seriously, I don't know.) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To change what's in those categories, you would have to edit my user spaces, which you may not do. And you may not edit my category pages, either. Best you don't try and mess with what you don't understand. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right. So, how about you doing what I suggested; for clarity and transparency: one master category, and everybody in it, and a simple note and nothing else on all your sock and sock talk pages listing your socks. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting rather creepy, Anthony. And as as for your repeated comment re Tim, they are a) not true, and b) a personal attack. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 17:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're calling me my behaviour creepy; you who slinks around here insulting and goading people, hiding behind different masks? Would you please take all the shite off all of your sock and sock talk pages and replace it with a simple statement that you "edit or have edited using (complete list of socks)"? Then I might think ~~you~~ your behaviour a bit less creepy. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I care little about what you think of me and less about your ideas about my user pages. ;> Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This interaction is becoming (or long since became) unhealthy and should probably be discontinued. I've already had to remove a quotation from this page that was highly inappropriate, and another admin has rev-deleted an edit summary. Br'er Rabbit, whatever it is you think you are doing vis-a-vis Anthonyhcole, stop it. Anthonyhcole, while you're not the only person to have serious concerns about Br'er Rabbit, I can tell you from seven years of experience that discussing them with him in this way is not likely to be productive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony, I apologise. I in no way support the addition of violent quotations on your talk page; that was out of line for him to do that. -- Dianna (talk) 19:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reading Davenbelle/Jack/Alarbus/Br'er Rabbit's history. This seems to unsettle him. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Striking that is appreciated; apology accepted. I hope we can move on from here. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Translate

Please understand that English is not my first language, and translate your statement to simple English for me: "There is an editor behaviour problem at WP:TFA. It is not something that ANI can fix, due to the strong partisan affinities. It may "fix" itself, but that fix may well be a triumph of mediocrity, or worse."

I don't see why you say ANI when posting to ArbCom and hope you know the difference.
I don't understand "partisan affinities".
I have no idea what you mean by "triumph of mediocrity".

My POV (but I don't go to ArbCom, they have enough reading to do): TFA has a structural problem of power. I came rather late to WP and fail to see why the TFA process is not a community effort like the rest of the project. The different structure seems to result in what you describe as behaviour problem. In a collaborative structure, I don't see that danger. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gerda. I believe there is a problem at WP:TFA because there is good evidence that editors are frustrated at the short notice they sometimes get to prepare their articles before they appear on the main page, and there is a high degree of tension and conflict between editors. In my opinion, and as demonstrated in this thread, WP:ANI isn't suited to resolving this problem, but arbitration may succeed. I believe ANI failed because many of the editors best-informed about the problem see each other as belonging to a tribe/clan/cabal/gang irrationally or immorally opposed to them, and there are so many of them that they swamp the ANI consensus-building process. That's what I meant by "partisan affinities."

By "triumph of mediocrity" I mean: Raul may be doing a very mediocre job but is being held in place by his partisans for some reason, when he should make way for a better, fresher team; or he may be doing a fine job and, without arbitration, he may be rolled out of that job by a small group of editors making his life miserable, motivated by personal resentment or intent on imposing style changes to featured articles that the majority of FA writers oppose, and replaced by a succession of shallow incompetents, or a group of bickering incompetents, acting as a committee. Or something else. I have no idea what is the case, and I don't think a reasonable outsider can really know, without a well-focused arbitration case. If we leave it to the personalities at TFA, it could be very ugly. At least in the arbitration process, the very worst excesses of behaviour can be avoided while the matter is examined in a somewhat structured process. I believe the people involved deserve this consideration. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Anthonyhcole, do you mind if I continue using your username (and part of it) as an example while querying the legitimacy of certain RevDels that I believe you are aware of? Gimmetoo (talk) 18:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None at all. But I have no problem, personally, with the rev del. I should have been more thoughtful. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:10, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your participation at my RfA. If our paths should cross, I hope to be able to earn your trust.—Bagumba (talk) 00:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just saying hello

7mike5000 (talk) 01:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dude! Anthony 01:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KISS image filter RFC

Since you specifically asked to be notified: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#KISS_image_filter. cheers, Rd232 ^talk 18:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC) :Cheers. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resource exchange

Hello.Your request was fulfilled.You can find a link to the article/s you requested in the relevant section at WP:RX.Please indicate when you've downloaded successfully and add a resolved tag to your request.Thank you.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 21:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC) :Thank you! --Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue: * Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem. * Research: The most recent DR data * Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey * Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums * DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August * Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate * Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 18:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm taking a short break

--Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Medicine

Not sure if you're monitoring the talkpages of those you invited, but longer-than-intended reply here. Feel free to crosspost any parts you feel are relevant. I don't check in very often any more, so if I take a long time replying to something don't be offended! – iridescent 00:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm here for the long haul, so take your time. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

science desk deletions

I sympathize, but I don't think we should be deleting specific contributions unless they are actual uncivil personal attacks or dangerous, BLP, violations, etc. I suggest you revert your deletion and consider hatting instead. μηδείς (talk) 03:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm treating that page as any public page as far as content policies go. Dubious health assertions don't belong. Don't content policies apply on the reference desk? Have I missed something? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not arguing on the policy but the method of enforcement. I see you have already been reverted, Had you hatted I could have supported that. μηδείς (talk) 03:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!

Go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (The account is now active for 1 year).

If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).

A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage
When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 05:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Touré

No prob. And thanks for the compliment. :-) Nightscream (talk) 20:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #2)

To add your named to the newsletter delivery list, please sign up here

This edition The Olive Branch is focusing on a 2nd dispute resolution RfC. Two significant proposals have been made. Below we describe the background and recent progress and detail those proposals. Please review them and follow the link at the bottom to comment at the RfC. We need your input!

View the full newsletter

Background

Until late 2003, Jimmy Wales was the arbiter in all major disputes. After the Mediation Committee and the Arbitration Committee were founded, Wales delegated his roles of dispute resolution to these bodies. In addition to these committees, the community has developed a number of informal processes of dispute resolution. At its peak, over 17 dispute resolution venues existed. Disputes were submitted in each venue in a different way.

Due to the complexity of Wikipedia dispute resolution, members of the community were surveyed in April 2012 about their experiences with dispute resolution. In general, the community believes that dispute resolution is too hard to use and is divided among too many venues. Many respondents also reported their experience with dispute resolution had suffered due to a shortage of volunteers and backlogging, which may be due to the disparate nature of the process.

An evaluation of dispute resolution forums was made in May this year, in which data on response and resolution time, as well as success rates, was collated. This data is here.

Progress so far

Leading off from the survey in April and the evaluation in May, several changes to dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) were proposed. Rather than using a wikitext template to bring disputes to DRN, editors used a new javascript form. This form was simpler to use, but also standardised the format of submissions and applied a word limit so that DRN volunteers could more easily review disputes. A template to summarise, and a robot to maintain the noticeboard, were also created.

As a result of these changes, volunteers responded to disputes in a third of the time, and resolved them 60% faster when compared to May. Successful resolution of disputes increased by 17%. Submissions were 25% shorter by word count.(see Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Statistics - August compared to May)

Outside of DRN other simplification has taken place. The Mediation Cabal was closed in August, and Wikiquette assistance was closed in September. Nevertheless, around fifteen different forums still exist for the resolution of Wikipedia disputes.

Proposed changes

Given the success of the past efforts at DR reform, the current RFC proposes we implement:

1) A submission gadget for every DR venue tailored to the unique needs of that forum.

Similar to the one that was deployed, with great success, to the DRN.
Structured based on the specific issues most commonly dealt with at each forum.
Designed to improve the quality of requests for DR and the efficiency of DR at that forum.
Applicable at following noticeboards: Dispute resolution, Neutrality, Reliable Sources, Original Research, Biographies of Living Persons, Notability noticeboard, Fringe theories, Conflict of Interest, Ethnic and cultural conflicts, External links, Third opinion, Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee.
Forms will merely fill out any existing templates (such as Arbcom's) and create a markup-free form in line with specific noticeboard practices otherwise.
Example form fields: What pages are involved? What users are involved? What is the issue? What resolution is desired?

2) A universal dispute resolution wizard, accessible from Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

This wizard would ask a series of structured questions about the nature of the dispute.
It would then determine to which dispute resolution venue a dispute should be sent.
If the user agrees with the wizard's selection, s/he would then be asked a series of questions about the details of the dispute (for example, the usernames of the involved editors).
The wizard would then submit a request for dispute resolution to the selected venue, in that venue's required format (using the logic of each venue's specialized form, as in proposal #1). The wizard would not suggest a venue which the user has already identified in answer to a question like "What other steps of dispute resolution have you tried?".
Similar to the way the DRN request form operates, this would be enabled for all users. A user could still file a request for dispute resolution manually if they so desired.
Coding such a wizard would be complex, but the DRN gadget would be used as an outline.
Once the universal request form is ready (coded by those who helped create the DRN request form) the community will be asked to try out and give feedback on the wizard. The wizard's logic in deciding the scope and requirements of each venue would be open to change by the community at any time.

3) Additionally, we're seeking any ideas on how we can attract and retain more dispute resolution volunteers.

Please share your thoughts at the RfC.

--The Olive Branch 18:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Randys

Who/what are "Randys"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Randy_in_Boise.

--Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. :-) Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody hatted your Village Pump posting

Though I strongly disagree with you, I don't think you quite deserved [7], as I'm sure you have some examples in mind. Wnt (talk) 13:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was hoping to have a discussion about the question "should WP:MEDRS apply on the reference desk?" – that is, on the general principle. WhatamIdoing's request for me to point to examples is reasonable, and I will respond, but I have a bit on at the moment and don't want to allocate the time to that just now. There's no deadline. I will resurrect the thread or topic sometime ~~in the next couple of days~~. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MEDRS is a great guideline but a terrible policy. It is an ideal that articles should try to live up to, but not at the cost of harming the encyclopedia. It is better to have an unsourced (but true) one-line stub defining a medical condition than to have no article at all. It is better to have it sourced to a newspaper article or a pop science web site than to have it unsourced. It is better to throw in a primary reference to a small study than to leave it at pop science. And of course it is best to have lots of solid review articles lovingly summarized. But Wikipedia writing is a gradual process by many hands, and we may not get to the end unless we are willing to put up with the beginning. It's easy to say an expert could do it from scratch, but will he even spot the deficiency in the first place unless he sees a crappy/low-rated article to prod him into action? Wnt (talk) 14:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You harm the encyclopedia and potentially harm readers every time you post unsourced safety, efficacy and other health claims on that public page. You harm the encyclopedia by betraying our commitment to verifiability and you undermine our reputation, and you potentially harm readers who believe false health-related information. If the reference desk simply applied our content policies and guidelines, it would be a valuable resource. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you're using 'you' in the generic sense here, as I try not to return to the Refdesk empty-handed, nor to misrepresent idle speculation or followup questions as fact. Nonetheless, even when people post misinformation, it leads to useful discussions to clear up the confusion, and the Refdesk never presents itself as anything but a few people weighing in with what they know (or don't know). These same questioners probably ask the same things at home, with friends, and get even more ignorant answers without correction. I have faith that the beneficial effects of an open conversation in that context or this one will outweigh the harmful effects on average, because we all started our lives in ignorance and yet somehow a science came out of it. Wnt (talk) 15:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant you (singular); that is, you Wnt. I'm pretty sure you make unsubstantiated health claims on the reference desk. Don't you? Your problem is you think Wikipedians offering the equivalent of a lounge room ramble is appropriate, when we have the epistemological tools at our fingertips – WP:V, WP:RS, etc – to offer our readers a far better service. Aren't chat-rooms ten-a-penny out there? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're saying that sometimes I chat, sometimes I speculate (trying to be very clear that it is just that), sometimes I piggyback a question of my own on an existing discussion, sure. But I do try to give good answers when I can - I really can't picture my responses there being viewed as a negative. Wnt (talk) 16:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with questions on public pages, yours or anyone's, unless they include an implied or explicit unsourced medical claim. When I have the time I'll explain the negative aspect. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate Ref Desk removal

See Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Question_removed_as_.22medical_advice.22. The consensus there seems to be that your deletion was inappropriate. Please bring any further removals up for discussion there. Just deleting a Q without telling anyone is unacceptable. StuRat (talk) 02:21, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replied there. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:12, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cost-effectiveness / MEDRS considerations

Hi Anthony - I appreciate your taking an interest in this matter, amongst all the other matters you discreetly yourself in. I think the questions of MEDRS scope and Consumer Reports input are related but distinct.

Regarding MEDRS, that query about a supposed "cost-effectiveness" source and the sort of gf response it elicited (ie that there's a clear-cut off between economic and biomedical claims) got me reflecting. Being neither a physician nor a biologist, but rather a scientific writer who happens to have worked on peer-review publications regarding cost-effectiveness, as well as on a selection of other scientific health-related topics that don't generally figure as "Medicine" in the clinical sense, I perhaps have a somewhat different perspective from many other WPMED contributors. The point raised by another user that MEDRS shouldn't be forced into contexts other than those for which the guideline was crafted seems to me to be a fair point. Except that MEDRS was originally crafted, if I'm not mistaken, to address sourcing issues regarding biomedical claims. And I can see no reason why it shouldn't work equally well for any claim which would fall within the scope of PubMed, which "comprises more than 22 million citations for biomedical literature from MEDLINE, life science journals, and online books" [8] (and NCBI/NLM in general). After all, the NCBI has had human and other resources to invest in determining what constitutes biomedical literature which we few, we happy few at WPMED can only dream upon (if you'll excuse the purple patch!). When trying to moderate some of the worst excesses of Biology and political orientation some months ago, I couldn't help regretting that this sort of subject matter currently falls outside the scope of MEDRS. Of course broadening the scope of MEDRS would be a community matter not confined to WPMED, and it would doubtless be highly controversial both within WPMED and across the wider community. Which is why, for the moment, I feel happier mentioning the matter in a semi-private way (I'd thought about Casliber's talk page) rather than jumping in at the deep end and winding up with the the mouse's tale.

I had a good chat with Blue about Consumer Reports, and although I fear I didn't connect terribly well with the real questions, I'm sure it's a matter worth investigating. Fwiw, some of their news items I've looked at appear to be rather well reported in good plain English – good quality material which is likely to be far more communicative to most of our readers than the academic sources we tend to use (rightly I think) as a basis for our content decisions.

Two rather long cents, I'm afraid. Best, —MistyMorn (talk) 13:05, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any coverage here of the cost effectiveness of investigations and therapies should be supported by only the best sources, obviously. I haven't really understood SBHarris's objection. If highly regarded peer-reviewed journals or professional and academic societies, or other rigorous and independent bodies haven't published cost effectiveness analysis of an investigation or intervention, then we have nothing to say on the matter until they do.

I would like to hear from someone at Consumer Reports who has some corporate memory or is across their policies and practices wrt conducting, summarising and reporting cost effectiveness analysis. They may have something to add to the discussion. It wouldn't hurt. Are there some CR publications that we can cite here? I think so. They publish primary studies, reviews and reviews of reviews. Should we cite their product comparisons, their reviews, their overviews? I've got my thoughts on each of those but I'd like to see an in-depth discussion of this at WT:MEDRS.

Given their mission statement ("test products, inform the public, and protect consumers") addresses the interests of "the public" and "consumers" not just members or those who can afford a subscription, and given Wikipedia's place in Google rankings, they should be heavily editing/exploiting Wikipedia. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:21, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to do with CEA, but would you, personally, feel more comfortable if MEDRS explicitly applied to pages like Biology and political orientation and Race and intelligence? I know I would. —MistyMorn (talk) 18:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's time to elevate Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (natural sciences) to guideline status. That might be a better fit than "medicine" for the former, and we could use Identifying reliable sources (social sciences) for the latter. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would not support enforcing these policies but I would support raising them to target goals and describing this as ideal behavior. I just would not want to discourage anyone who could not meet the targets. I would like MEDRS applied, for example, to good article reviews of Biology and political orientation but I think that when such articles are first created their base is going to be in a non-medical perspective from perhaps sociology. I do not want to stop that. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A message for you

Hello, Anthonyhcole. You have new messages at Lova Falk's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Medicine on Wolfram Alpha

I have joined your project. Would you be interested in hosting this on Wolfram Alpha? There's already a community there. --RexRowan Talk 09:36, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about Wolfram Alpha where? Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Blue Rasberry is one of the prime movers behind Wikimedia Medicine.) The Wikimedia Foundation seems happy for the moment to host us there, so I guess we'll stay there for now. But feel free to suggest it at m:Wikimedia Medicine if you would like others' input. If you think anyone at Wolfram Alpha would like to join that conversation, please point it out to them. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you're coming from...

But, unfortunately, ANOTHER warning would have no effect on Malleus, as you see, he firmly believes that he has the right and duty to tell people that they are "dishonest fucks" and "dishonest twats". He was cautioned for this in the Civility Enforcement case:

Malleus Fatuorum admonished 5) Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) is admonished for repeatedly personalizing disputes and engaging in uncivil conduct, personal attacks, and disruptive conduct. Passed 7 to 2, 02:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

In short, he has decided that he can do this and say this, and no warnings that we could provide would modify this behavior. Which unfortunately, means that we have to take the next step here. SirFozzie (talk) 17:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. You can give him a last warning. If you don't, you (plural) will be rightly seen as ignorant up-yourselves pompous foolish possibly vindictive morons. Malleus is standing on the precipice now. He knows what's coming next time he insults someone. It will take one diff and five minutes to site ban him. If you ban him now I'll be tempted to leave Wikipedia in solidarity, and in protest at your incompetence. And I won't be alone in feeling that. If you warn him, you'll be seen as reasonable, patient, compassionate and understanding; and if Malleus continues insulting people there will be barely a whisper raised when he's banned. A warning is both the compassionate and reasonable thing to do, and the astute thing to do. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your response to the motion is your own business, but let's put it this way. A commonly used saying is "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." Malleus could short circuit this right now by saying, fine I won't do it again, and this whole thing would blow away. But he doesn't. Why? Because he sees nothing wrong with it. And he would/will do it again if he believes it's necessary. As to saying that there would be no response if we decided to go down your path and Malleus DOES insult someone else, I may be cynical, but the fact that there's this much defense to the current issue, and there was just as much after the civility enforcement case, and just as much as the just-declined request two weeks ago, tells me that your suggestion, while preferable in a blue-sky world, is not feasible in the slightest. SirFozzie (talk) 17:19, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're an arrogant fool. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel that way. SirFozzie (talk) 17:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Continued on SirFozzie's talk page.

COI guideline draft

I saw your message on Malleus's talk regarding outreach. I'm working on a draft rewrite of the conflict of interest guideline to more clearly define the terms for future discussions on contributors with a potential COI. Your input and collaboration would be appreciated. Gigs (talk) 20:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's great. Unfortunately I just don't have time or attention to focus on that issue. There are a couple of bits in that guideline, or at least in the way it's interpreted, that annoy me terribly, but ... no time. Good luck. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you could give me a hint here, I could try to make sure it's addressed in the rewrite. Gigs (talk) 14:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think paid editors, BLP subjects and others with significant COIs should declare their COI in all article talk page discussions. If they do that, I have no problem with them editing. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

A kitten for you, Sir or Madam, for upholding the standards of clinical trials in evidence-based medicine. Thank you!

Felidofractals (talk) 09:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who uses "apocrypha" in an edit summary is welcome on my talk page. Do you know about m:Wikimedia Medicine? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for your support, and for teaching me a new meaning of the word "prosecute". I have lost the motivation to take part in the project, so I won't stick around just to defend my opinions on civility. 85.167.108.93 (talk) 16:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe you could watch. I would go to the barricades to get your proposal implemented for article talk pages. Elsewhere might have to wait a bit. On article talk pages, it's both enforceable (ad hominem is never appropriate and easily defined) and essential (the quality of our articles depends on the strength of the arguments on their talk pages). But you know all this. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Maybe I'll regain the motivation in the future. Agree to your point about article talk pages. 85.167.108.93 (talk) 16:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Fare well. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a proposal.[9] --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This could be interesting. It's probably the wrong venue. Ultimately this should be hashed out in a request for comment. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the smartest people on the project are opposing this, so it behooves me to pause and think about it for a while. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:51, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Journal processes

If you'd like to chat off line, feel free. —MistyMorn (talk) 17:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On or offline is OK for me. I'm just vaguely thinking about the future of WM:MED/WP:MED. Can I run my muddy vision by you here? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. —MistyMorn (talk) 17:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's very late here. I'll try to formulate something sensible ... but I might fall asleep before I put anything down. Thanks for the advice and links at WT:MED, by the way. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Liverpool game starting soon anyway... ([10]). —MistyMorn (talk) 18:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in responding, my muddy vision has been changing too fast for me to say anything about it, and I've been swamped by dramas. I was thinking that we need a peer-review process and some form of "reliable version" of medical articles if we want scholars to involve themselves with Wikipedia, assuming we'd have to establish our own at m:WM:MED. I hadn't followed up what James is doing with Open Medicine, though. He explained it to me after you opened this thread and it's taken this long for me to satisfy myself that he's come up with the perfect solution. So, no vision necessary now, James has taken care of it. Again, sorry for taking so long to respond. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear you seem to have been having a bit of a tough time Anthony. Thanks for pointing me to James's Open Medicine work. I'll certainly take a look at that. Best wishes, —MistyMorn (talk) 00:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm doing fine - the dramas are resolved/ing well but they do take time. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's good to knwow, Anthony. Fwiw, I've posted a few more resources at your thread WT:MED#Introduction_to_academic_publishing. —MistyMorn (talk) 18:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much

Thank you for joining WikiProject Freedom of speech! Much appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 04:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a subject that interests me greatly, though I have no expertise. I expect to be doing a lot more watching and learning than contributing. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sure, thanks very much for your participation. Hopefully we'll be having discussions at WT:Freedom of speech on areas of collaboration, resources, etc. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 05:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you expect to be focussing on freedom of speech as it impacts Wikipedia policy and practice. I assumed you would but on reading the project page I don't think I see it mentioned there. It's one of a few rather large elephants in the room here. That is, we do draw lines wrt real-world harm and offensiveness but they (particularly the former, harm) could be more explicitly addressed. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The main thrust of the focus is going to be on improving mainspace articles related to Freedom of speech, broadly construed. We could of course discuss that issue at WT:Freedom of speech, but it might also be better to discuss that at WT:Free speech, instead (a page with a slightly different focus). — Cirt (talk) 16:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just read WT:Free speech and it looks like the spot for that conversation. Thanks. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re:New medical organization

Dear User:Anthonyhcole, thanks for your message! Yes, I have been active at Wikiproject Medicine and hope to contribute more to the project. If time allows, I will definitely look into participating in Wikimedia Medicine. Thank you very much for the invitation! With regards, Anupam^Talk 05:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful. You don't have to actively participate, just having more eyes on us, particularly in these early, formative stages, would be valuable. Presently, we're muddling through the bylaws of the corporation at m:Talk:Wikimedia Medicine/Bylaws#COI. If you add your name to this list I'll notify you as we approach milestones, such as when we open the proper membership list. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anthony, thank you for your note on my talk page and please do keep me posted. I have had the Wikimedia Medicine page on my watchlist since I added my name to the list of participants, and I also joined the mailing list. I am, indeed, committed to participate in areas where I can put my skills to good use. Similarly to my involvement with our non-profit, Translators without Borders (TwB) where I'm a volunteer and Wikiproject Medicine where I'm engaged through TwB, I am available and eager to contribute with ideas and feedback in general, translation (English<>Hungarian), editing (English&Hungarian), project management and recruiting (in all languages involved), and potentially some PR work as well.

Thanks again for touching bases, and I wish you All great success in your endeavors! Ildiko Santana (talk) 16:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, Ildiko, I'm sorry I didn't notice you're already on the list. I'll keep you informed. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

don't miss it

I'd like to make sure you don't overlook this. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to get some sleep. Have a read of Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Youreallycan#BLP_topic_ban_-_clarification. It clarifies his intentions wrt BLP discussions. I wanted him to have nothing to do with BLPs but the final agreement allowed for something - I can't remember the details now and I'm delirious with sleeplessness, and I haven't read through his comments at BLPN. Do they breach the spirit of that clarification? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Behavioral optometry

Hi Anthony, I have left extensive notes regarding Behavioural Optometry and wondered what your response was. I ran what I had written past my orthoptist colleagues at the University and they felt what I had written was pretty sound, so hope that you get this communication....still not quite sure how to do it....feel it not polite to edit the page without your opinion. Peace Peaceful072.102.97.1 (talk) 08:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Welcome back. I replied on the article talk page. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HI Anthony, I have emailed Dr Brendan Barrett at Bradford University Optometry School to arrange to talk to him sometime this week about jointly writing something more definitive on this page and of course having it written in conjunction with yourself. I have read up on the Wikipedia code of conduct and the idea of a conflict of interest so want to have something written which looks at both sides of the discussion with equal equanimity. Peace2.102.97.180 (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's good. The most important guideline that you and Dr Barrett should read is Identifying reliable sources/Medicine - it covers the kind of sources we can use to build a Wikipedia medical article (basically, reviews, meta analyses, graduate level textbooks, and professional or scholarly organisation guidelines and position statements). Unless you master that guideline, you will waste a lot of time. Writing WP med articles is a fairly arduous and exacting task. Essentially, all assertions need to be supported by sources that conform to that guideline. So it isn't just a matter of knowing your stuff, you have to find a good published source that supports every assertion. Let me know when you need me. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Anthony, I am speaking to him tomorrow and will discuss this with him. We are both busy though hopefully can both make time to do something worthwhile. 2.102.96.33 (talk) 18:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should also point you to No original research - particularly the section titled Synthesis of published material that advances a position. Essentially, that section says "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." --Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anthony, I have left a message for Molly on the "vision therapy" page as regards editing this page and that of vision therapy. I spoke to Brendan this week and have agreed that I will write something definitive which he will review before publication. Let me know if you would like to look at the framework first before posting and can alter it as seems appropriate. See this as being a collaborative project and what Molly has written on her page seems well reasoned. If you want to recommend other people on your side of the equation let me know. As regards referencing thanks for the guidelines though am used to referencing reports which are sent to other health professionals so ensure that the references used are of quality. Am sure that you will pick up on it otherwise. Congratulations on the star by the way :-) peacePeaceful07 (talk) 05:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, let's work together on this. Post an outline, and any sources you intend using, on User:Peaceful07/Behavioral optometry. We can construct the article there and then merge it into or replace the existing article when it's ready. Writing Wikipedia medical articles is more constrained than a lot of medical or scholarly writing so I do urge you to read those guidelines, even though you are familiar with other modes of scholarly publishing. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For all your hard work, day after day, month after month, year after year... Lova Falk talk 16:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Lova! That's very kind of you. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re:WikiMedicine

Thank you for informing me, sure I am interested to be involved MaenK.A._Talk 18:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. I'll let you know when we open the membership list. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WMAU

Hi Anthony. You can request an account on our wiki. http://wikimedia.org.au/wiki/Special:RequestAccount You dont need to wait for a response regarding your memebership. Non-members can only edit talk pages, and I'll be happy to answer your queries there. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've applied for an account. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been nominated!

I thought that you deserved something a bit extra for all of the amazing work you've done for the project.
I've nominated you for a gift from the Wikimedia Foundation!

Lova Falk talk 16:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Thank you! --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gone bush

I'm on a very tenuous, slow, frustrating connection, so won't be doing much online for a week or so. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on a fast enough connection - however, I might just envy you for your offline activities... Lova Falk talk 15:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice to get out of the city for a while. (I do find myself constantly checking to see if my internet connection has risen from 0 to 1 bar. I guess I"m hooked.) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ha!

I finally got around to watching the video you linked to in this edit. Ha! I very much did enjoy it :) Thanks! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I haven't forgotten our civil POV-pusher discussion - still thinking... Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point

on depression mood - I've moved content to depression mental disorder (JCJC777 (talk) 10:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Question

Why do you concentrate only one editor there are plenty of editors that edits solely in WP:ARBPIA(look at the log of topic bans and notifications) and they certainly here to promote their point of view?Do you think they should be all banned?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a bit interested in ARBPIA. I noticed Plot Spoiler at ALCAT test where he battled furiously against five experienced medical editors to advertise and promote and present as effective a commercial medical test that's been shown to be ineffective for the purpose. He deprecated the best sources and pushed for the inclusion of celebrity endorsements, and when it became clear that the article would continue to report what reliable sources have to say about the test, he took the article to AFD. That's (i) immoral and (ii) bad for the encyclopedia. One of the medical editors asked him if he had a COI and he deflected and dithered before denying it. I got curious. So I went through his edit history - all of it - to see if he had form.

July 2010: Shake Weight.
August 2010: Kiehl's A beautifully executed upgrade of this cosmetics retailer's article.
September 2011: Warwick New York Hotel. Egregious abuse by Wikipedia of this hotel.

This is where it gets interesting. I recommend you look at the history:

July 2012: When the online PR professional, Killian Roche from IWL, ran into trouble at Meridian Audio [11] Plot Spoiler took over and created a puff piece. I removed this embarrassing puffery.
September 2012:‎ Created Digital Luxury Group - a non notable business.
October 2012: ALCAT test

While perusing his contributions, I couldn't help but notice he's almost exclusively focussed on ARBPIA, and when I saw the appalling thing he did to the Warwick Hotel, and then the problematical Palestinian incitement, I decided to ask whether he's editing tendentiously in that area too. It really is an afterthought.

But if I find he's terrible in that area (and, although the Warwick was very bad, and his behaviour on other articles like National Iranian American Council has been bad, what I've seen so far doesn't rise to terrible) I will take that forward because we do need to start effectively addressing civil POV-pushers here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very proud of my work at Kiehl's and I appreciate you taking note of that. I hope you can give me respect for some of my other worthwhile contributions (just take a look at a few of my DYKs like Mexican pointy boots). I'd also like to note that Iran-related issues are outside of the ARBPIA framework - unless they relate to Israel. Overall I do recognize that some of my editing has been sub-optimal and I am dedicated to improving it. Regardless of all that's going on, I hope we can work together more collaboratively in the future. Plot Spoiler (talk) 00:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican pointy boots is great! (I hadn't looked at it before. And Ami Miron is a credit to you.) You do good work, and most of what you do in Abrahamic/Middle Eastern topics is fine and valuable. But when you step across the line ... it's more of a leap. :) I'll speak to you later when I'm back home, and I won't be posting anything more about you until we've spoken again. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you first recommended I started by revising Warwick New York Hotel: [12]. You were right to criticize my edits there. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's very cool. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

Please remove or heavily refactor your latest comment at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive242#Advice?. I don't know how much experience you have with edit wars and battles on noticeboards, but these people have lots, and your claims (with no evidence) will make the job easier for them. I recommend removing it now, then taking some time to refactor. For example, rather than "he's a problem", it should be "there is a problem". I think you're going to have to remove the second para, or make it waffly like "there must be no edits that look as if they were made by a PR advocate in medical articles". Johnuniq (talk) 11:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I made the edit you suggested. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

Wondering if you could help guide this user as per User_talk:Jmh649#Addition_to_Pain_Mechanism Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. This new theory may not have been subjected to published scholarly review yet - I couldn't see evidence of it on my first look. I'll read it carefully and respond on the editor's talk page in the next 24 hours. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

COI guideline draft

I saw your message on Malleus's talk regarding outreach. I'm working on a draft rewrite of the conflict of interest guideline to more clearly define the terms for future discussions on contributors with a potential COI. Your input and collaboration would be appreciated. Gigs (talk) 20:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's great. Unfortunately I just don't have time or attention to focus on that issue. There are a couple of bits in that guideline, or at least in the way it's interpreted, that annoy me terribly, but ... no time. Good luck. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you could give me a hint here, I could try to make sure it's addressed in the rewrite. Gigs (talk) 14:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think paid editors, BLP subjects and others with significant COIs should declare their COI in all article talk page discussions. If they do that, I have no problem with them editing. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

A kitten for you, Sir or Madam, for upholding the standards of clinical trials in evidence-based medicine. Thank you!

Felidofractals (talk) 09:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who uses "apocrypha" in an edit summary is welcome on my talk page. Do you know about m:Wikimedia Medicine? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for your support, and for teaching me a new meaning of the word "prosecute". I have lost the motivation to take part in the project, so I won't stick around just to defend my opinions on civility. 85.167.108.93 (talk) 16:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe you could watch. I would go to the barricades to get your proposal implemented for article talk pages. Elsewhere might have to wait a bit. On article talk pages, it's both enforceable (ad hominem is never appropriate and easily defined) and essential (the quality of our articles depends on the strength of the arguments on their talk pages). But you know all this. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Maybe I'll regain the motivation in the future. Agree to your point about article talk pages. 85.167.108.93 (talk) 16:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Fare well. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a proposal.[13] --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This could be interesting. It's probably the wrong venue. Ultimately this should be hashed out in a request for comment. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the smartest people on the project are opposing this, so it behooves me to pause and think about it for a while. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:51, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Journal processes

If you'd like to chat off line, feel free. —MistyMorn (talk) 17:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On or offline is OK for me. I'm just vaguely thinking about the future of WM:MED/WP:MED. Can I run my muddy vision by you here? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. —MistyMorn (talk) 17:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's very late here. I'll try to formulate something sensible ... but I might fall asleep before I put anything down. Thanks for the advice and links at WT:MED, by the way. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Liverpool game starting soon anyway... ([14]). —MistyMorn (talk) 18:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in responding, my muddy vision has been changing too fast for me to say anything about it, and I've been swamped by dramas. I was thinking that we need a peer-review process and some form of "reliable version" of medical articles if we want scholars to involve themselves with Wikipedia, assuming we'd have to establish our own at m:WM:MED. I hadn't followed up what James is doing with Open Medicine, though. He explained it to me after you opened this thread and it's taken this long for me to satisfy myself that he's come up with the perfect solution. So, no vision necessary now, James has taken care of it. Again, sorry for taking so long to respond. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear you seem to have been having a bit of a tough time Anthony. Thanks for pointing me to James's Open Medicine work. I'll certainly take a look at that. Best wishes, —MistyMorn (talk) 00:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm doing fine - the dramas are resolved/ing well but they do take time. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's good to knwow, Anthony. Fwiw, I've posted a few more resources at your thread WT:MED#Introduction_to_academic_publishing. —MistyMorn (talk) 18:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much

Thank you for joining WikiProject Freedom of speech! Much appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 04:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a subject that interests me greatly, though I have no expertise. I expect to be doing a lot more watching and learning than contributing. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sure, thanks very much for your participation. Hopefully we'll be having discussions at WT:Freedom of speech on areas of collaboration, resources, etc. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 05:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you expect to be focussing on freedom of speech as it impacts Wikipedia policy and practice. I assumed you would but on reading the project page I don't think I see it mentioned there. It's one of a few rather large elephants in the room here. That is, we do draw lines wrt real-world harm and offensiveness but they (particularly the former, harm) could be more explicitly addressed. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The main thrust of the focus is going to be on improving mainspace articles related to Freedom of speech, broadly construed. We could of course discuss that issue at WT:Freedom of speech, but it might also be better to discuss that at WT:Free speech, instead (a page with a slightly different focus). — Cirt (talk) 16:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just read WT:Free speech and it looks like the spot for that conversation. Thanks. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re:New medical organization

Dear User:Anthonyhcole, thanks for your message! Yes, I have been active at Wikiproject Medicine and hope to contribute more to the project. If time allows, I will definitely look into participating in Wikimedia Medicine. Thank you very much for the invitation! With regards, Anupam^Talk 05:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful. You don't have to actively participate, just having more eyes on us, particularly in these early, formative stages, would be valuable. Presently, we're muddling through the bylaws of the corporation at m:Talk:Wikimedia Medicine/Bylaws#COI. If you add your name to this list I'll notify you as we approach milestones, such as when we open the proper membership list. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anthony, thank you for your note on my talk page and please do keep me posted. I have had the Wikimedia Medicine page on my watchlist since I added my name to the list of participants, and I also joined the mailing list. I am, indeed, committed to participate in areas where I can put my skills to good use. Similarly to my involvement with our non-profit, Translators without Borders (TwB) where I'm a volunteer and Wikiproject Medicine where I'm engaged through TwB, I am available and eager to contribute with ideas and feedback in general, translation (English<>Hungarian), editing (English&Hungarian), project management and recruiting (in all languages involved), and potentially some PR work as well.

Thanks again for touching bases, and I wish you All great success in your endeavors! Ildiko Santana (talk) 16:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, Ildiko, I'm sorry I didn't notice you're already on the list. I'll keep you informed. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

don't miss it

I'd like to make sure you don't overlook this. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to get some sleep. Have a read of Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Youreallycan#BLP_topic_ban_-_clarification. It clarifies his intentions wrt BLP discussions. I wanted him to have nothing to do with BLPs but the final agreement allowed for something - I can't remember the details now and I'm delirious with sleeplessness, and I haven't read through his comments at BLPN. Do they breach the spirit of that clarification? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For all your hard work, day after day, month after month, year after year... Lova Falk talk 16:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Lova! That's very kind of you. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re:WikiMedicine

Thank you for informing me, sure I am interested to be involved MaenK.A._Talk 18:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. I'll let you know when we open the membership list. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WMAU

Hi Anthony. You can request an account on our wiki. http://wikimedia.org.au/wiki/Special:RequestAccount You dont need to wait for a response regarding your memebership. Non-members can only edit talk pages, and I'll be happy to answer your queries there. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've applied for an account. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been nominated!

I thought that you deserved something a bit extra for all of the amazing work you've done for the project.
I've nominated you for a gift from the Wikimedia Foundation!

Lova Falk talk 16:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Thank you! --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ha!

I finally got around to watching the video you linked to in this edit. Ha! I very much did enjoy it :) Thanks! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I haven't forgotten our civil POV-pusher discussion - still thinking... Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Advice I

Please remove or heavily refactor your latest comment at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive242#Advice?. I don't know how much experience you have with edit wars and battles on noticeboards, but these people have lots, and your claims (with no evidence) will make the job easier for them. I recommend removing it now, then taking some time to refactor. For example, rather than "he's a problem", it should be "there is a problem". I think you're going to have to remove the second para, or make it waffly like "there must be no edits that look as if they were made by a PR advocate in medical articles". Johnuniq (talk) 11:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I made the edit you suggested. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]