User talk:Anthonyhcole/Archive1

hi. thank you for your helpful advice here[1]. i like the quote on your user page. it seems sad that it was in 2006 and it is still a problem. Aisha9152 (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! Anthony (talk) 22:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey Anthony, would it be ok for me to copy some of your user page? Not the personal stuff, but the helpful stuff. Also, I like the quote at the top. Thanks. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Be my guest. Anthony (talk) 20:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!! By the way, if you run across another user's page that has a lot helpful summaries, let me know. Thanks. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 04:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I've done the same. The links are very useful. Thank you. FiachraByrne (talk) 12:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

[2] ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 20:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Basically, no worries, and thanks for (a) spotting that and (b) volunteering to fix it ;-) TFOWR 05:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Anthonyhcole. Yes, you fairly describe the situation. There was another editor (adminstrator), Kwami, that also had the same feeling. I don't know of any action being taken. I'd support such an action, but I don't really know the ropes, I won't start such action myself. There have been a few others, recently, that have also voiced some dismay on what might be a religous slant on this article. To me, its fine if the religous want to say what there view are, but they shouldn't be able to limit a more acedemic view, they should be able to hide away parts of the bible that don't corrispond to the traditional view (see the Ritial 10 commandments, much debate over that). Cheers. Steve kap (talk) 21:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello Anthonyhcole, LegitimateAndEvenCompelling has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for pointing out WP:BRD. See the new comments I added showing ChrisO asked me to stop mass editing else I might get blocked, and he did this 13 minutes before he moved to block me. 13! I must be a really fast typist. So thanks, also, for your support/common sense.

I seem to be getting ganged up on, and, given the actions of ChrisO, Black Kite, and Badger_<something>, principally, it looks like a clear violation of something, but I don't know what or whether I should do anything about it. Would you know? Have any guidance? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 11:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

If you intend respecting WP:BRD, and can convince AN/I of that, you might avoid a block. Anthony (talk) 11:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that until now. I was aware of 3RR, so 2 reverts was my max. Now I suppose it'll just be, what, 0 reverts. And you are right, it would be unfair to be blocked indef for not being aware of BRD, while pursuing RS, no less. It is also unfair that I should get blocked and no one ever (except one now) responds substantively to the RS issue at hand and the various pages. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 11:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

So, concisely, politely make it clear you (1) didn't know about WP:BRD and (2) will follow it, now that you know about it. Anthony (talk) 11:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the guidance. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 11:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello there, Anthony. There was a recent discussion at WP:ANI regarding the systematic removal of Media Matters for America as a reliable source. I've started an RfC regarding MMfA, Media Research Center, Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting, Newsbusters etc. at Wikipedia: Identifying reliable sources. Some of us believe that these hyperpartisan sources should never be used as factual sources at Wikipedia, due to their tendency to selective edit facts. Please participate in this important discussion, concerning one of Wikipedia's most fundamental editing policies, on the Reliable Sources Talk page here. Skoal. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Whenever I encounter this user it is abusing or sneering at other users. This behaviour is toxic to those around it and destructive to the project. Does anybody else think TT needs to learn some manners?

Yes, TreasuryTag is unnecessarily combative. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I strongly agree. Just look at the user's talkpage for July to see how combative they are. EdEColbert^{Let me know} 06:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I think images in infoboxes add a great deal to the aesthetics of a page. I know you can change the default size of images you see under my preferences.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. And it actually didn't make that much difference to the width. Anthony (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

talk;92.24.108.65 ? KK (213.158.199.138 (talk) 08:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC))

? Anthony (talk) 10:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Anthpny-you ssked questions which I answered on 'Ineraction brain-mind' on talk 92.24.108.65 KK (213.158.199.137 (talk) 07:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC))

Aah! Thanks. I have read your response once and will give it some thought before responding. Talk to you soonish. Anthony (talk) 07:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Some more answers for you on User talk;92.24.108.65. KK (78.146.53.101 (talk) 09:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC))

Hi KK. I've replied at User talk:92.24.108.65 Anthony (talk) 10:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Rather than discuss on Jimbos page...

The problem arises when those disputes do not make it to the COI boards. I mentioned it as it has happened more than three or four times.

I do bear in mind that pointing to the COI boards may indeed prove fruitful in new disputes but some of the experts have already been pushed out and I fear will never return due to their bad experiences. This is, of course, only ones I have discovered in articles I come across to do with my fields of interest - mainly Robotics and AI. Most disagreements I come across, that are current, are more like mobbing and in most cases it appears that one or more of the mobbers are in fact themselves COI but undeclared. The most usual is a new editor who has an obvious field associated name (eg Einstein for example) and then fails to declare COI after editing the page as they may not actually have read all the policies or even be aware that COI policy is in place. The page watchers who now mob have chosen names that are not directly associated with the subject (eg Trumpetbreath or ReallyNotreally for example) may well have COI but do not need to declare it as they have the anonimity of their Wikiname to protect them.

This is a real problem as editors who are experts in their field are being tarred with the COI brush simply for being themselves and are being judged on COI rather than content.

As part of the Robotics project I am asking experts in the fields of AI and Robotics (and associated topics) to join the assessment team where they can at least be used to validate, or raise issue with, the quality and content of the articles under our purview.

Chaosdruid (talk) 13:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I do agree valuable experts are being driven away from here by insecure or possessive (or just nutty) editors, but see that more as a behaviour problem rather than a policy problem (e.g., the early part of this thread). COI basically says editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, of itself, a conflict of interest, so those who throw COI at an editor because that editor works or is an expert in the field, are misrepresenting policy which, if deliberate, is bad behaviour. Anthony (talk) 13:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Lol - that is one strange "you can have the final say" way of not letting them !

Yup - too many good people have been scared off. I have been desperately searching for the discussions that precede August but, due to a rather high number of edits in the last 4 weeks, identifying them is difficult. One that is current is here Genetic Algorithm talk — Be warned though that it is long although the first long section "I am pasting from OliFilths" can be sort of ignored as it was only inserted towards the end of the discussion Consensus (take 2)

Admittedly it is not a perfect example but it does show the mobbing effect quite well.

Chaosdruid (talk) 15:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

If this were an argument about a new theory concerning the cause of autism or the safety of vitamin D supplementation, it would not be mentioned on Wikipedia because WP:MEDRS requires assessment and contextualisation of the work in a 3rd party review, textbook or similar - KB's authorship would not be the issue. As for mobbing, I see it more as editors applying this high degree of rigor to the article. Is that appropriate for this article? I tend towards it being appropriate ... but I'm conservative in these matters, and not sure my view reflects WP policy. Anthony (talk) 08:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which your name was discussed. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Incivility / harassment by User:7mike5000.7mike5000 (talk) 10:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I have proposed an edit for the mainspace of an important Wikipedia policy, the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources policy. Essentially, I believe that some sources are so partisan that using them as "reliable sources" invites more problems than they're really worth. You've previously participated in the RfC on this subject, or another related discussion indicating that you are interested in this important policy area. Please indicate here whether you support or oppose the proposed edit. The original discussion is here. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

(With regard to discussion happening here)

You're one of the few, honest, and objective people on my case right now. There's so much context to this which is being avoided and it seems FT2 is lying. It's annoying. I honestly came back with the best of intentions. I accepted mentorship offers from 3 different people. I was then getting steamrolled. Random WP editors were DEMANDING that I censor material on my website which is critical of WP. I said I would be open to making changes, if specific editors mentioned wrote me about any specific concerns, but that I could not just "bulk censor" my site. Anyway as I was defending myself on the ANI board, I was suddenly---out of nowhere---BLOCKED by Scott Mac, who I had called out on his inappropriate comment just a few hours earlier. I felt that his BLOCK was a punitive "revenge" measure for me calling him out. Then FT2 comes from nowhere, Aools}} Basically, no worries, anet out of it if I agree to a highly restrictive mentoring program. However, again, I had already agreed to 3 other mentors and I was highly annoyed by the block!

Well, despite my honest and good intentions, I lost all hope.

I'm very sorry about my reaction, but between the steamrolling, unfair demands to censor material on my website, Scott's inappropriate remark, the punitive block that came from nowhere and the taunt that I could get myself out of it if I agreed to a highly restrictive mentoring program (despite the fact that I had already accepted 3 other offers to be mentored), I lost it.

Thanks for hearing me out and thanks for being objective and fair about the situation. I understand you're probably risking a lot by not going along with the mob. I wish more people had that type of courage. David —Preceding unsigned comment added by IHadHonestIntentions (talk • contribs) 17:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

(After a couple of self-"redacted" responses, now that I've calmed down a bit.) The work you do off Wikipedia, in removing bigoted and pro-terror content from the web is laudable. I am deeply offended, though, by your characterisation of Wikipedia as antisemitic. Your language is lazy and guaranteed to alienate good-faith editors here. You are behaving (just like thousands of editors before you) in a way that will generate maximum controversy and attention for yourself, while achieving none of your claimed goals here.

Of course there are anti-Semites editing Wikipedia, and militant Jewish supremacists, no doubt; pro- and anti-Scientologists; pro- and anti-global warming warriors; and so on. The most one-eyed of these always characterise Wikipedia as habitually biased against them, and always grossly and permanently alienate the vast majority of good-faith editors. To quietly, effectively achieve neutrality on the topic areas that interest you: abide by our policies and refrain from insulting me and all the other editors who can lend a genuinely disinterested (in the philosophical/rhetorical sense) hand.

While you continue as you do, the only reasonable interpretation is that your purpose is simply to soapbox and shine attention on yourself. Anthony (talk) 07:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I think your idea is great. Wondering if we should simplify the instructions further though. Informing people on how to deal with reversion before they have even made a change might be disheartening. I have attempted an introduction here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Glad you like it. I'd rather they went into editing a med article knowing the basics of reversion and how to deal with it, so that, when it happens, they'll be forewarned and be armed with a simple protocol for moving forward. I agree with the spirit of your suggestion though - that the tutorial should be as simple and minimal as possible. Anthony (talk) 06:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

My contributions may be piecemeal for a while. Anthony (talk) 06:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. You left an edit summary "See Talk:Flood (disambiguation)", but I could not find any discussion there, so I'm left wondering. I thought WP:PIPING is very clear "redirects should not be used in disambiguation pages" and the only two exceptions are "to link to a specific section" and "an alternate term which is already in the article's lead section", neither of which applies. Am I missing some other exception? I thought I figured out these rules already, but I keep learning. I though the proper way in this case would have been either

• "The Flood", a single by Cheryl Cole from Messy Little Raindrops

or

• "The Flood", a single by Cheryl Cole from Messy Little Raindrops

where personally I'd go with the first. Am I missing something?--Muhandes (talk) 15:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. I forgot to click "save". I was objecting to your changing the format on that one list item, when all the items in the list are formatted identically, using the pipe. I object because, if you're going to change one item, you should change the others to suit. And, if you are going to impose a style change on the page, don't justify it using Wikipedia:PIPING#Piping. It only warns against using pipes in disambiguation pages "to make it clear to the reader which article is being suggested, so that the reader remains in control of the choice of article." That doesn't apply in this case, because the only change is the addition of quotation marks to the displayed article page name. Anthony (talk) 15:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I was not referring to the rules for pipes, I was referring to the ones for redirects (WP:PIPING points to both, I'm sorry I wasn't clear). Indeed, a pipe in this case is very justified - for adding quotes. A redirect isn't. I did not notice some of the other links were also redirects, I will fix them as well. --Muhandes (talk) 15:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. The seven songs which were redirects are now all conforming with MOS:DAB rules on redirects. All the rest are using pipes for quoting, again, per MOS:DAB. --Muhandes (talk) 16:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Nice. Thanks. Sorry for misunderstanding what you were up to. Anthony (talk) 16:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Anthony, I left a note which might also be of interest to you at User_talk:Ronz#Not_a_spam_but_an_informative_addition. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Anthony, please check the discussion page for my response. 85.65.243.51 (talk) 21:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI: I've removed your recent comment from my talk page [3] per WP:TALK and WP:BATTLE. If you want to reword it so you're not making assumptions about what I have and have not done, and you're not directing me to do something based upon those assumptions, then please do so. Otherwise, we can discuss your concerns here. --Ronz (talk) 18:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I commented on your question at the copyright noticeboard. 85.65.243.51 (talk) 19:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Replied there. Anthony (talk) 19:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Anthony (talk) 07:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

[4]

I like your experiment very much. How do you plan to measure success?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Putting it on Pain was just to see if anything exploded, and nothing important did. Next it'll go on 20 health-related articles for a month or two. Behaviour on those pages during that period will be compared with behaviour on those pages during the same period in previous years. We'll compare percentage of new editors, the quality of new IP edits, and how many go to the talk and new editor help page. If it has a discernible positive effect, I'll propose a similar trial of a BLP mini-tutorial. If that's effective, I'll request permission from the community to run a wider, more statistically powerful trial.

Suggestions, and criticisms regarding any aspects would be very welcome at the project talk page. Anthony (talk) 13:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

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

[5]

be interested in this discussion. Cheers, Hordaland (talk) 05:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Hordaland. I just got back online, and that seems to be resolving now. Anthony (talk) 12:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

[6] I agree and well done. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

[7]on my talk page. --Hordaland (talk) 23:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned about your recent mass changes from "Autism" to "Autism spectrum disorder". Could you expand on your reasoning a bit, please? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, never mind -- I see it was discussed in detail at Talk:Autism. I get it now. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Anthony. I'm a bit concerned about your mass edits to change wikilinks from autism to autism spectrum. As I noted in the discussion at Talk:Autism#Ambiguity of the word autism, I don't think we can change people's words. If the source says autism then so must we. We mustn't second-guess the source and say "well, they mean this". Also, I don't think it is a good idea to have the word "autism" in an article link to autism spectrum. People will click on that link rightly thinking it goes to our article on Autism and will be confused when it goes elsewhere (see WP:EASTEREGG). For example, in MMR vaccine, Wakefields paper uses the words "autism" [8] and nine of the twelve children were classified as having autism, only one as having an autistic spectrum disorder. So I think discussion of MMR really must use the word autism, even if some people feel the issue is related to other autistic spectrum disorders too. That's just one example. So, in summary, I think it is safe to change autism to autism spectrum (or autism spectrum disorder) only if the source uses that term, and that easter-egg wikilinks are not appropriate in this case. Colin°^Talk 10:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Replied at Talk:Autism#Changing_Autism_links. Anthony (talk) 02:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I remembered your name from a recent wp:AN discussion about a school project on wikipedia which got out of hand. I recently stumbled upon Talk:ITEC30011, where a teacher expresses his desire to use wikipedia for teaching (or at least for demonstration). Could you have a look at it? Yoenit (talk) 21:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Yoenit. [9]. Anthony (talk) 02:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

...and good volunteering! Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 21:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

When you have the time, could you please clarify the first 5 editors in the "clarification needed" list on this page. Thanks, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 09:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

OK. I've just started reviewing them. Anthony (talk) 11:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

TB: User_talk:Kingpin13#The_fat_man - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Anthony, I'll try to create a better sentence in chronic pain. I was referring to this sentence from the abstract: About 40% of patients with MS have insomnia; causes include pain associated with muscle spasms, periodic limb movements, RLS, nocturia, medication effect, and depression. Best, Giancoli (talk) 03:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Anthony (talk) 03:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Please put your proposed edits on your "sandbox" page (click the link below). I'll critique them there. Let me know when you'd like me to look at something. If you don't have a sandbox, tell me and I'll make one for you. If you can't edit for any reason, email me by clicking "E-mail this user" at left on this page. Feel free to ask me anything you like about Wikipedia. If I can't answer, I'll find someone who can.

I am in a different timezone, so there may occasionally be a delay of some hours before I respond. Anthony (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• User:0861247208lc/Sandbox
• User:Aland90/Sandbox
• User:Bradyk19/Sandbox
• User:Brdiget Amaka Nwoke/Sandbox
• User:Ciaran14/Sandbox
• User:Clarka33/Sandbox
• User:Concanr2/Sandbox
• User:DionneH/Sandbox
• User:Harrise6/Sandbox
• User:Hadel.tabayoyong/Sandbox
• User:Kara Brady/Sandbox
• User:Kellys76/Sandbox
• User:Lalora6/Sandbox
• User:Lumanog.n/Sandbox
• User:Lydiamoe/Sandbox
• User:Lyonsm9/Sandbox
• User:Nkirukaokorie/Sandbox
• User:Oconnor2/Sandbox
• User:Oomarti/Sandbox
• User:Rasa ponomarenko/Sandbox
• User:Raymond murphy/Sandbox
• User:Siodaoconnor/Sandbox
• User:Stevemcdonald08/Sandbox
• User:Susan. muzondo/Sandbox
• User:Tai adenuga/Sandbox
• User:Tracey91/Sandbox
• User:Hadel.tabayoyong/Sandbox

Hi Anthony, I am a DCU student, I was just wondering if you could check my edit to ensure that it is at the correct standard,Thank you,Aoife.

It must be noted however that panic attacks cannot be predicted, therefore an individual may become stressed, anxious, or worried wondering when the next panice attack will occur (Barker 2003, p.215.)

It is believed that men are mostly affected by GID.In order to feel more like a woman,transsexual men will part-take in certain procedures, for example, increasing their breast size, replacing their penis with a fake vagina (Gelder 2005 p.213.)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarka33 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Aoife. I have responded at your Sandbox. Anthony (talk) 05:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Anthonyhcole, could you please check my sandbox for my edits. I've already edited the pages cos I wanted you to see where I intend to insert them. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tai adenuga (talk • contribs) 13:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. [10] Anthony (talk) 09:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the corrections. will try to cite the old edits properly when i get the chance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tai adenuga (talk • contribs) 14:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Anthony, I am a Dcu student and was wondering how to set up a sandbox?Lyonsm9 (talk) 21:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Lyonsm9! Just type User:Lyonsm9/Sandbox into the Wikipedia search box. On the page it takes you to, click "Start the User:Lyonsm9/Sandbox page". Get back to me if you have any problems. Anthony (talk) 03:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Anthony, I'm not sure if you have wrote me back? I'm not very technological, this whole course work has me quite perplexed. Regards, Lyonsm9 (talk) 20:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)Lyonsm9Lyonsm9 (talk) 20:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Anthony, i cant seem to set up a sandbox on my page. could you get back to me on this please!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oomarti (talk • contribs) 12:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Oomarti. I have created a Sandbox for you here. --Anthony (talk) 15:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi anthony, with this sandbox you have set up for me...is it just a matter of me going to the page i waNt to edit-then edit it as normal and it it then saved into the sandbox,so then i would let u know!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oomarti (talk • contribs) 20:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Write your proposed edits in the sandbox, not in the actual articles, and once I've looked at them, paste them into the articles. Anthony (talk) 00:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi anthony, I am a DCU student.I dont have a sandbox yet, could you please make one for me as I am going to do edits for my subject.Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadel.tabayoyong (talk • contribs) 16:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Welcome! Your sandbox is here. Anthony (talk) 16:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Anthony, would it be possible for you to create a sandbox for me please? I am having some difficulties doing edits and would appreciate it if you could have a look at them first. Thanks. Harrise6 (talk) 14:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC) Elaine Harrison

Done. Your sandbox is here. Anthony (talk) 14:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Anthony, I have some propose edits in my sandbox. If you could please have a look for me.Thanks. User:Lumanog.n —Preceding comment added 14:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC).

Done! Anthony (talk) 15:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Anthony, I have put some of the edits that I would like to do in my sandbox.here. If you get a chance could you have a look at them please. Thanks again Harrise6 (talk) 15:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello anthony, I have put 10 edits in my sandbox User:Hadel.tabayoyong/Sandbox . Could you have a look at them please. thanks alot. —Preceding undated comment added 17:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC).

Great. Thanks. It's bed time here, so I'll check them tomorrow. Anthony (talk) 18:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Anthony.... would really appreciate if you could take a look at my sandbox and let me know if im doin it right!! thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oomarti (talk • contribs) 14:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Oomarti. I'll look at your sandbox in about an hour. Can you please indicate which articles (and which section) you will put your writing into? Anthony (talk) 15:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

yah anthony...thats no problem! have that done for yah now. Thanks again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oomarti (talk • contribs) 15:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi anthony, My name is Hadel, I've received the reply you sent me about my primary proposed edits. i also have put pages on the refs as requested. I have put further 8 edits for you to double check before I edit them in the page. if you could have a look at them whenever you'll have the time. thanks. sandbox - *User:Hadel.tabayoyong/Sandbox. —Preceding undated comment added 17:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC).

Nice work, Hadel. Well done. Anthony (talk) 06:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Anthony, I have added more proposed edits in my Sanbox and it would be appreciated if you could have a look at them please if they are ok.Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lumanog.n (talk • contribs) 07:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Anthony, its me again --Lumanog.n (talk) 08:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC). I recieve your last reply. Thank you.I just did what you asked me to do and if you could look at it for me please for the second time..:) Much appreciated. thanks.

Hi Anthony, I have put some edits in my sandbox,would really appreciate it if you could look at them for me.Thanks bradyk19 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradyk19 (talk • contribs) 12:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC) Hi anthony,i cannot find my sandbox and I am a DCU student. could you please make one for me as I am going to do edits for my subject. Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcguirn3 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. Your sandbox is here. Anthony (talk) 01:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Count with me

I have watchlisted all these students sandboxes. If you do not mind I might also comment on them, and if you need any help simply post at my talk page. I do think that the future from WP is going to come from this kind of assigments.--Garrondo (talk) 10:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Garrondo. I doubt there'll be much more action there, though. The assignments have all gone in. I agree. It is this generation that is going to maximise the benefit of Wikipedia. The existing cohort of specialists just doesn't seem able to make the leap from their towers. Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Taking a look at this new editor's contribs, I wonder if s/he may be one of your DCU people? --Hordaland (talk) 18:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed them. I assume they are. I'm following them round converting their URL's to citations. (Rather than create a fuss.) The assignment is due tomorrow (Friday), so there's a little frenzy happening at the moment. :) Anthony (talk) 18:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

What a kind mentor you are! (And some of these people are even greater procrastinators than I am.) --Hordaland (talk) 18:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Anthony (talk) 18:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

For your information: these edits have been reverted. I have reinstated the contributions by Panda11 as they appeared good to me. Best wishes, Jdrewitt (talk) 18:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I saw that. :) Anthony (talk) 18:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Anthony, Thank you for changing the greeting photo for the Inflammation wikipage, in response to my Talk: request. Hypocritus (talk) 11:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Anthony (talk) 17:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Your edit summary, in which you undid my removal of the word singer, saying it was sourced is preposterous. It was be no means sourced and it just happens to be on the talk page that "singer" not be included in the lead because she is not signed to a record label and is not recording an album. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 19:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. (Except for the preposterous bit ). Merry Christmas. Anthony (talk) 02:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, good. I'm glad we've reached an understanding. Merry Christmas to you as well :) EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 14:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

[11]

• Dear Anthony, please consider that it may be that with, and perhaps because of, all your complications you are the key person most focused and best equipped to address what really matters here. Utmost regards --Epipelagic (talk) 10:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC).

Thank you Epi. :) But if I'm the man... we're in worse trouble than I thought. :/

Bonne et heureuse année, Anthony! I second your serve to the IASP. I guess their problem is that they had to fight a lot during decades in order to get credibility in the academic, scientific, and medical spheres, and they are not sure yet whether they really have it, so that they continue to stick to their policy of "we deal professionnally with pain in the narrowest sense". I would like them to realize that they are now a part of the 'establishment' and that the main paralyzing obstacle to the advancement of their study and practice at present is the flatly secure conformism of their ways. --Robert Daoust (talk) 15:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe. But they are happy to spend lots of other people's money (utterly fruitlessly) on the psychological precursors to chronic pain, and on CBT (with miniscule payoff to the patient). I'm not assuming a bad faith conspiracy on behalf of these professions, just questioning the wisdom of spending that money before doing even the basic neuroscience on the cognitive, affective and psychosocial consequences of pain, while the tools and techniques lie neglected at their fingertips. Anthony (talk) 05:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is at last the final text of the Declaration of Montreal, which might be of interest to you: http://www.canadianpainsummit2012.ca/media/DeclarationofMontreal.pdf. I notice with pleasure that the phrase "And, recognizing the intrinsic dignity of all persons and that withholding of pain treatment is profoundly wrong, leading to unnecessary suffering which is harmful, we declare that..." has replaced "And, recognizing the intrinsic dignity of all persons and that suffering is harmful and should be avoided, we declare that...". Interestingly, the Declaration originated at the Australian Pain Summit of March 2010, I guess, and the next "political" step seems to be the Canadian Pain Summit of April 2012 (this is my feeling, not official information). You may be interested also to have a look at http://www.painmanagement.org.au/international-pain-summit. One more thing... I found a note to myself that I took at the International Pain Summit of last September: "By not taking part in the edition of the article Pain in Wikipedia, the IASP is failing to its responsibility to provide the public with quality information." A few months before that, in a small gathering at McGill University, I had spoken to the main IASP officer for publication, introducing myself as a 'main' editor of the Wikipedia article on pain. I felt, as usual, a mix of warm sympathy and cold distance, the latter clearly overcoming the former as far as collaboration possibilities might be envisaged. --Robert Daoust (talk) 11:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Fascinating. Thanks. You seem to be across the politics of this; I haven't a clue. I've cited your text about human rights to the pdf of the Montreal declaration [12] Was that appropriate? Anthony (talk) 12:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Aah. OK Anthony (talk) 12:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Dmcq's remarks appear to be in response to Pilcha's essay Advice for new Wikipedia editors. I may be misreading but it doesn't appear to relate to your proposal at all. MSGJ's statement "I think you have enough support for a trial" is not in itself a statement of support for anything, but a neutral assessment of consensus.

In the end I count five in favour, one of whom specified that their support was limited to a one-month trial, two opposed, and five neutral. I accept that you have a consensus for this, but it is a weak one and I don't think you should attempt to stretch the boundaries of that consensus by straying too far from what you originally proposed.

Cheers,

Thparkth (talk) 15:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It's probably best to keep this in one place, so I'll copy this there and respond at the project talk page. If you'd rather continue here, let me know and I'll delete that and respond here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Anthony. I found your page after comments about animal rights spilled over from SlimVirgin's talk page. You seem interested in all aspects of pain--neurological, philosophical, historical, etc., and it's obviously very personal for you. I'm wondering if you have ever heard of the Mindfulness Meditation research of John Kabat-Zinn. He is a meditation teacher and researcher who works a lot with people in chronic pain. I think you might find some of his writings or talks insightful. It's not, um, an answer, or even a theory, more just an idea about how people can ease pain by relating to themselves and experiences differently. If you want want to look him up. We've got an article on him, and this google search should lead you in any relevant direction: http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=navclient&gfns=1&q=kabat+zinn+meditation+pain . Not sure if you can access the full text, but here are two studies about it: [13] ; [14]. Let me know if you're curious. Ocaasi (talk) 13:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ocaasi. I have been hearing about mindfulness approaches toward pain management for years but confess I haven't explored it yet. Just a couple of days ago someone at Talk:Fibromyalgia pointed me to this recent small trial which incorporated mindfulness among other practices. The results are fairly spectacular, so I guess it's time to inform myself. There is an obvious "top down" effect (the impact of cognition and affect on pain) but my academic interest is focussed on the "bottom up" effect (the impact of pain on cognition and affect). A massive amount of research is being conducted into the former (including the study of mindfulness) and virtually nothing on the latter. Thank you for the nudge :) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you have the number of ip visits and editions by them in the articles in the previous months? How are you getting the data? Manually? Maybe I could take a look at it and my statistics book to see if I get anything on the statistical power of the test. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 14:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

On a side note I would say that we have 20 subjects (articles), with two related measures (after and before the invitation), however I would say that we should think of the time of the trial not as a way of giving statistical power to our test but reliability to our before and after measures. Conceptually statistical power would be gained increasing the number of articles and not the time of the test, although a more sensitive measure (with more time) would also make easier to see differences.--Garrondo (talk) 14:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

So, broadening the trial increases power and lengthening it increases sensitivity? I'm not kidding when I say I haven't a clue about statistics :) I'm collecting the data manually. See this comparison for Pain. It compares new editors in the period the template has been on Pain with new editors in the same calendar period a year ago. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello you!

I hope you won't mind my templating this message, but as there are several users whom I wish to express more or less the same thoughts to, it seemed appropriate.

Of course it's a shame things turned out how they did with regard to the thread on ANI about Someone65, but no great harm has been done and he will eventually get his comeuppance. I'd like to thank you for your support there - it's been noted :)

Best,

Egg Centric (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

		Barnstar award
		For the work you have done on WP:Invitation to edit, and for the calm, respectful and helpful manner in which you have dealt with questions and criticisms. SilkTork *YES! 22:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

(blush) Thanks! --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey Anthony, I appreciate everything. Now that you are my mentor, I have a question, should I have oatmeal for breakfast or Cheerios? :)7mike5000 (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back! Have some fun. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

And I reckon Cheerios. They're just so much more fun. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey Anthony, I haven't done anything yet so the new and improved me is still intact. An interesting fact: On a dead end job I had, I had to go up on a roof and sweep off a load of pigeon shit that fell from an upper level, as I'm sweeping the shit I'm looking at it and I thought "that shape looks familiar". Then it dawned on me " wow, when pigeons shit from a height the shape it forms when it lands looks just like Cheerios". An example of the profound insights I am capable of. 7mike5000 (talk) 20:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Cheerios will never be the same again. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I started an article on Silent stroke it happens to be an unrecognized cause of depression and cognitive deficits, is there any problem with mentioning those facts, or does that circumvent my "restrictions". The article is about a medical condition primarily.7mike5000 (talk) 06:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Well done. But please don't add or edit or discuss content about cognitive, emotional or behavioural correlates (i.e., psychological or psychiatric correlates). You might consider working up some content in your user space, though. If you do, be sure to start the page with __NOINDEX__ so it isn't indexed by search engines. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Anthony, I was wondering if you could possibly do me a favor. I don't have much time currently. I wanted to put the "medical stub" notice on the page for silent stroke I've been clicking on various medical articles trying to find it. If you could possibly place it there when you have a chance I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks 7mike5000 (talk) 21:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Done by user Axl. Is that what you meant? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Anthony,

Thanks for your wise and comforting words re: my recent brush with the "Explain yourself, lad" page; you were my only critic who said something useful. And you were completely on target too. I also appreciate you suggesting I watch a witty user page, and I am now doing that, and also I have your page on my watch list. You are doing a great job!

At the beginning of your page, you said that you have problems understanding complex explanations, but that you can understand Wikipedia perfectly. I find that puzzling, because, as I mentioned elsewhere, I think many WP articles are unnecessarily complex, prolix, and include too much detail, as expressed by editors who seem to be primarily interested in showing everyone else how much THEY know, as opposed to communicating with a lay audience reading a general text. Earlier, I wrote:

I have many ideas concerning the improvement of WP, which I think is being dragged down by techie geeks who are intent on showing off how much they know at the, often deliberate, expense of communicating with the people. I read text like “The answer then becomes isomorphic to the previous one” unnecessarily using “isomorphic” instead of the simple “the same as”, and text which uses the mathematical term “function” when the simple “is determined by” would do nicely. WP is full of it, and many articles are becoming unreadable through their efforts.

I believe the emerging tendency of the Wikipedia experiment is the over-saturation of articles with simply too much data, too many examples, too many essentially trivial sidelines, and too much technical detail, all in the name of what becomes obsessive completism. A people’s encyclopedia implicitly aims at providing a clear, succinct summary of a topic, and one which is accessible to the general reading public. That aim needs to be renewed and given greater priority. Bertrand Russell’s “History of Western Philosophy”, itself an encyclopedia, illuminates with a wonderful intensity how complex subjects can be amenable to a literary style of great grace and classical simplicity. It is a Bible to me on these matters, and I would recommend it as a Pole Star to all who aspire to write on subjects of greater moment than the latest issue of some computer game (including that of mixed metaphors).

The article on the Mandelbrot Set requires college maths before you can understand it. I think the math side is indispensible, but much there could have been expounded in more or less plain English, BEFORE we got to the math. The article on General Relativity could come straight from a University Level text.

A few years ago, I noticed that the WP article on Einstein’s Special Theory had another article on Special Relativity adjoining it, a purportedly “Simple Introduction” to the Theory. The irony was that this “simple introduction” was almost as incomprehensible as its more comprehensive partner. However it was, at least, a recognition that many readers of such a subject are only after the general concepts, the gist, as it were, of the matter, and endless equations simply mean nothing to them. As far as I know, no other article has attempted to do something like that. Simple Wikipedia is not an alternative. While Wikipedia can make things too complicated, Simple Wikipedia rarely deals with them at all.

The “Simple Introduction” to Special Relativity has been modified and improved in the last three or four years, but I have this notion that the Theory can be explained WITH NO RECOURSE TO MATHS at all! And in the plainest of English! I am going to set up a special page at my User site, and begin this, to show that it is possible. Perhaps you will keep an eye on it. I’d appreciate it. I think many articles could be given an initial explanation that does not need College Level maths to understand. What do you think? Myles325a (talk) 02:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Myles! I agree, a lot of articles are unnecessarily dense. I believe this is because they weren't written by writers, and clear technical writing is an especially rare talent. Others are aware of the problem. This recent thread at the Wikipedia mathematics project is illustrative. I think the first ten years were a process of article-starting and the next twenty will be about article-fixing. I shall watch the progress of Myles' special theory of relativity with delight - I've always wanted to know what the heck that was.

There is a fair bit of activity at Wikipedia:Make_technical_articles_understandable (and its talk page), which has just recently been promoted from essay to guideline, against some opposition. This is relevant to your comments about "Introduction to" articles. It recommends using them sparingly, where such a gradient can't be employed in the main article. The editors working on it now are some of the most rational and sensible on the project. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Anthony. I feel we are on the same wave length on this. As a writer myself I try always to put myself in the shoes of those who will read the text, and remind myself that they may not know all that much about the subject. Many techies are not good writers, have little respect for good writing, and do little non-technical reading themselves. Quite often, when you read their material, it very much resembles their dialogue, when they are speaking with others in the same profession; it is largely incomprehensible to “outsiders”. The irony is that this use of jargon, bad syntax, and clumsy style is most often seen in the WP areas which are supposed to be guiding the users, largely because they are primarily written by computer-oriented males.

Posters were advised to write article introductions which provided a brief mention of ALL the themes of what was to follow. Some writers took this very seriously, with the result that one reads introductions where there are up to five links to other articles, per line, and the whole sense of the subject is obscured by jargon, densely-packed, and in long obscure sentences. The worst part of this is that a reader coming to an article largely makes up their mind as to whether to continue or back away on the basis of those first few lines. They feel that if these FIRST lines are giving them difficulty, then it is only going to get worse as they read on.

The article on the Mandelbrot Set is an example. Several years ago, there were threads on the Talk Page of that article complaining that it was largely incomprehensible to those who did not have college-grade maths. At that time, the introduction of the article did at least make some attempt to describe how the Set was created, even though it was fairly heavy going. Today, the appeals of yesteryear for more plain English exposition have been met by maths-minded editors making the article introduction more “concise” and thus even more technical and inaccessible than it was before. Complaints to that general effect on the talk page have been met with the brusque reply “but without assuming this much knowledge, you can't say much more than "The Mandelbrot set is a pretty shape". Of course an article about a fractal which involves complex numbers and planes is going to be difficult, but it is more abstruse than it need be. The reader could be given a run-through of how the first six or so calculations are made, and the gradual emergence of the Set from a black zero could be MUCH more clearly elucidated. There are many such examples, and although I am not a techie I try to amend them, especially with regard to style and obscurantism.

I’ve reread the “Introduction to Special Relativity” article, and it’s not too bad now, a vast improvement on what it was. But my plan is to demonstrate that the Theory can be summarized to satisfy most readers in a short and entirely comprehensible article (but not aimed to replace the one there now: I would put a link on the talk page to the special page on my site.

The example I often think of is that the concept of “a ham and eggs breakfast” can be described in simple terms concerning a simple recipe; we know that and peruse examples of it all the time. We would be astounded if an author dealing with such a subject were to begin invoking massively complicated chemistry equations to do with the behavior of complex proteins and other molecules when subjected to heat, and the way such substances interact with each other, and are transformed and so on. ALL of such material can be left to specialized texts, not dealt with in a general encyclopedia aimed at a non-expert audience. Myles325a (talk) 05:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Totally agree. And, as I said, we're not alone. But it will take time to push against WP:OWNERSHIP in some cases and summon the creative energy to do it in others. It is happening, though. Do not despair! --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I may have been busy and forgot to say it, but thanks for the support. That's a pretty big plan in the section above, I hope this small comment doesn't get squashed. PPdd (talk) 04:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd originally set this up as a reply to this section, but I've hijacked enough talk pages this week so I'll put it here. It should really be read in context, but to do so you may have to alt-tab a lot.

I essentially agree with everything WAID has said, "mentoring" PPdd has left me a large bruise on my forehead from beating it against that wall. From my perspective, it's about as delightful as coming home and finding your new puppy has, with great joy and tail-wagging eagerness, just presented you with your favourite shoes pre-shredded and goobered on for your convenience. PPdd doesn't help himself by doing exactly what WAID said - starting 6 conversations on 4 pages and enough drama to make an ANI junkie shriek "ENOUGH". That patient explaining can often look like pedantic hair-splitting, the horrific abuse of an equine (post-mortem) or special pleading for his POV and it's very much worth noting that the community doesn't like the gut-and-AFD approach (in particularly because acupuncture point is a page that almost de facto will be kept). PPdd tries to learn, but his "learning" involves nearly as much drama. Though I can't fault his intention or eagerness to learn, I am frustrated by his particular interpretation of WP:BOLD and do agree with WIAD's assessment that he's running at least 6 months ahead of where he should be. The drama he is creating - no quotes - is nearly always unnecessary. Editing wikipedia offers instant gratification and can be quite heady, but good content comes from quick edits that are clearly and unambiguously supported by sources, policies and guidelines and slow edits when it's something more controversial. The faster he learns to slow down, the better. For him, for the editors he works with, and for most articles. Speed is only an asset when the changes are uncontroversial in the community at large. He needs to develop a specific set of skills for editing here, and it would do the community and encyclopedia a great deal of good if he learned those skills before stepping into homeopathy and acupuncture.

I think the difference between WAID and I is a) specific experience with the editor, because I've seen PPdd do his level best to try to improve while WAID's first experience was probably in seeing six new sections appear at WT:MED and soon after, a <1K stub nominated for deletion and b) optimism. I've whiled many an hour trying to rehabilitate a banned editor (normally in a manner best described as "lacking in the ovary of a flowering plant").

Also, PPdd is tendentious in my experience. He doesn't like nonscientific things. That's quite obvious by his main and talk page edits. The number of time's I've pointed out we're wikipedia, not rationalwiki is, well, twice. Maybe three times. But still, but still... Tendentious editing in his case comes from having a flawed understanding of what NPOV is, and using it (and MEDRS) like a blunt instrument when it isn't even a scalpel. He's yet to do something blockable which shows he can, and is very willing to learn. But the sheer number of places where he's making "mistakes", crossposting, replying to himself, noting every fleeting thought he can type out, etc. means a whole mess o' headache. So I can't criticize WAID's blunt assessment of PPdd's developing skill base and don't blame her for slotting PPdd into a fairly appropriate category. "Rehabilitating" an editor like that takes time and patience, with an uncertain reward and I don't blame anyone for not wanting to bother when there's actual work to be done.

And now I'm tired. I may have had a final point. You know what, just pretend I did, for my precious, precious dignity. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above, even the tendentious bit. (I just looked it up and realise I've been misunderstanding the meaning of the word. God. I thought it meant deliberately destructive. Don't know where that came from.) I hope, and assume, PPdd is reading this and the posts at Whatamidoing's talk page, and expect him to have a long hard think about it, and behave accordingly.

You, WLU, by the way, are a saint. PPdd, I don't know another editor who would have dealt with your jolly but frenetic bursting onto the scene here with such patience and equanimity. Certainly I couldn't have. Please heed the underlying message from me, Whatamidoing and WLU. Your bright and intelligent energy is welcome here but take the time to get a feel for the ethos. Be patient with us. Ebullience at your end feels like badgering and insistence at this end. By now you have realised there are policies and, more importantly, norms here that you will take time to grasp. Please don't do multiple bold edits at controversial articles without patiently discussing them, one by one, over time, first. If you can't bring others along with you, and can't after a couple of polite attempts understand why, walk away from the issue for a while. That's the ethos here, I think. I'm still working it out myself. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh my Dog you are so wrong about me. Check my block log, and the number of times I've used profanity in my talk page postings. SandyGeorgia is a saint, I'm clearly a sinner. The only reason I'm as patient as I am is because it's incredibly obvious that PPdd is well-intentioned and equally obvious that he's trying to learn from his mistakes. The fact that I substantially agree with most of his opinions on quackery is absolutely unrelated. Not even a little bit.

I can't wait to see what PPdd's edits look like a year from now, I expect them to be stellar. Unfortunately there's no way to really grasp the norms here without making a ton of mistakes (which he is doing) and learning from them (and a double-check here). You know what I'd expect to help? A block. Seriously, blocks have a wonderful way of clarifying things and slowing down editing, and I continuously thank William M. Connolley (mentally) for my first one. I don't think anyone should be ashamed of their first block (it's when you get to your third, 100% justified block, that the community should worry. I'm on my third, completely justified block; 4th if you want to be a stickler). WAID has a clean block log, as does PPdd. Good for them, particularly with WAID's 47K of edits. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Saint in training, then. You're nearly there. This is why I was annoyed with WAID, whose work and utterances I generally revere. If PPdd can get into his stride waltz here, he'll be a hero, but she seemed to be just shutting him down. Mind you, PPdd is pretty resilient, so I'm probably fretting over nothing, and maybe a few clips around the ear from WAID is the right medicine. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Meh, WAID does produce posts that come across as (depending on your interpretation) brusque, clipped, terse or critical, but text-based communication is notoriously difficult to interpret (there's a reason why emoticons are so popular!) and also has to deal with a lot of nonsense. That in itself is a learning process, and I've done similar things many times - attributing motivation and having to eat crow after the fact. And again to her defence, PPdd has had a lot of polite commentary and gentle nudging directed his way, only to have it bounce off with no apparent impact. Polite is nice, but civil doesn't have to mean "friends". I find it irksome when someone starts a section with "Dear friend" and launches into something stupid. In those circumstances, I'm not friendly even if I'm not dropping swearwords every second sentence like I'd like to (check out my talk page archive over the past month, there are at least three examples I can think of right now involving AIDS denialism, acupuncture and vitamin C megadosage). Anyway, PPdd's getting enough support I don't think he'll leave discouraged, so perhaps we're wasting a lot of electrons over not that big a deal. Making a lightning bolt out of static electricity? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I like her approach, actually. A lot. I like being on the receiving end of it. What I didn't care for was her getting his motives and actual behaviour wrong in that Acupuncture point kerfuffle and not acknowledging it when it became obvious. Ordinarily it wouldn't matter. But then I saw the suggestion she assume the tool and I remembered her mentioning recently that we need more admins willing to readily dispense blocks, and I froze before this image of her tazering PPdd. Continuing the electrical metaphor theme. Probably just my neuroticism. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

You know, I had the chance to get tasered voluntarily (just to try it out) and my wife wouldn't let me? How unfair is that. Can't buy a motorcycle either, though I do see the value in that.

I'd like to think WAID, if she had blocking authority, would be more careful than that (and that's part of the reason {{unblock}} exists).

Wow, it's like this posts solely exists to burden the servers. Why no, I'm not vigorously avoiding my responsibilities, why do you ask? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll yield to your greater wisdom and experience. It was probably just an unfortunate succession of events.

I was blocked once by an admin who misunderstood a joke, and blocked me without warning or consulting any of the parties involved. And on another occasion I was blocked for calling the admins at ANI lazy ignorant fools. Good block, of course. But I was calling them that because a sleazy little gamer had dragged me there on a bunch of frank lies and the admins were reprimanding me and demanding I withdraw legal threats which were pure invention... because they hadn't bothered to follow the diffs. So I guess I'm a little sensitive about admins who jump to conclusions and zealously dish out blocks and reprimands but are too busy or lazy to do the reading. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I know, I read your block log this morning

Ultimately it tends to wash out over time. It's insisting on speed that tends to produce trouble. Most of my edit warring blocks (three and counting...) were because I was unwilling to let a minor point stand for more than 20 minutes. Stupid. Much as I'd like to say I've learned, the last one was this summer. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Aah. Edit wars. Pressing "undo" feels like delivering a good slap. Then mummy steps in and sends you to your room. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

WLU, I think you should have given your friends a chance to get in on the fun at Medroxyprogesterone that day last summer rather than hogging it all to yourself. And I laughed out loud at your line about your willingness to help him being absolutely unrelated to his POV.

When dealing with people who've been around for a while, I think that direct communication is appropriate and usually preferable. Tone is difficult to convey in electronic communication. Plain is least likely to be misinterpreted, although I sometimes see something that I wrote at a later time and think, "Wow, that sounds so bare and blunt, and I didn't feel anything like that." For example, I was smiling and happy when I wrote the first sentence above, but that's not at all clear at the beginning, is it? And context matters: WLU knows that he asked (although not that day) for help with the bioidentical hormone folks, and, by and large, he didn't get the help he needed. We failed him. So I blame him for not dropping a note at WPMED saying he was at 2RR and could he finally get some support, or for abusing the {{dubious}} or {{offtopic}} templates as a temporary warning to readers rather than reverting, but I understand that he was getting less support than he needed from the community (e.g., me).

Similarly, "See WP:FOO" can be interpreted in many ways, from 'What a great question from a great editor, and I am happy to be able to supply the answer' to 'Haven't you idiots figured out how to Read The Fine Manual?'

I haven't got much interest in blocking people, and I'm perfectly capable of keeping myself busy without admin tools, so I haven't accepted a nomination. It seems vaguely unfair (to the existing admin corps) on occasion, because not having the tools means that I dump routine work on the people who do, rather than cleaning it up myself. But I'm not really interested in the drama-filled aspects. (Must run for now...) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Ha, regards your last point I looked up FisherQueen's contribs (I was deeply, sincerely in love with FisherQueen when I started because she was the most awesome-helpful admin ever. Now I just think she's nice and have switched to worshipping SandyGeorgia) and noted that by now her contributions are mostly on user talk pages - and I know why. She spends most of her time blocking vandals and reviewing unblocks. Which is great, we will always need people to undertake the important task of protecting the wiki.

If you're in this for the long term, one must accept getting help when it comes, and wishing for it at other times. I've checked the contrib history of a half-dozen long-term editors I know and am fond of, all showed the same patter of peaks and troughs in edits. My own editing pattern is the same! I think it's worth acknolwedging that we all wax and wane in our interests, and that's not a bad thing.

Huh, UGAcodon, who I was edit-warring with at MPA, has an editing patter very reminiscent of PPdd but turned to the dark side. It's because I see the contrast between the two that I'm so willing to try to try to help PPdd become a better editor. He may push and push and push, but he's actually trying to improve wikipedia, not promote a product. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Morning. I chuckled at that line about it being absolutely nothing to do with PPdd's POV but then, still not knowing you well enough, thought "Ooo. Maybe he thinks it's true." So didn't comment, just in case. On your page, WAID, I mentioned even geniuses make mistakes, "I do." and left the smiley off just to leave you guessing. :)

Now that it's clear you won't go striding about here tazering people willy nilly - my place (or WLU's) would be fine, though - I totally endorse you assuming the tool. I need an admin to run to from time to time. Re your comment that we need more admins ready to block, I immediately thought of SarekofVulcan. He delivered my last couple of blocks and I've developed a kind of Stockholm syndrome toward him. He's a little trigger-happy, but generally I think the place would run pretty well with a few more Sareks brooding in the watchtowers. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say that we need more admins to issue blocks, and I don't remember the last time I asked for an admin to block someone (outside of SPI). I usually need them to move a page over a redirect or to semi-protect something that's attracting libelous vandalism. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Whatamidoing. I read this yesterday morning and am mortified. I spent 2 hours looking at each of your edits over the last 30 days, looking for what I had misread and failed to find anything remotely like what I had attributed to you. I have been too busy to log on since then, but have been dwelling on my rudeness and other inadequacies. The intensity of my mortification is only exceeded by the intensity of the admiration I have developed for you after looking at what you've been doing for the last 30 days. I have to run now. I just didn't want to leave my apology any longer, and will say more when I can log in again. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

You're forgiven. Really, it's not a problem: the fact is that mistakes happen, and misimpressions are easily acquired. The more you do, the faster you do it, and the more distracted you are while you do it, the more likely it is to happen. It's just a fact of wikilife. I'm glad that your thorough review left you satisfied, though.

If your guilt is best assuaged by doing penance, then try assessing a few articles here. As a simple starting point, basically all people and businesses should be low-importance. You'd asked about it earlier, and this is definitely within your capabilities. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

That word "forgiven" washed away my shame but it's done nothing for my regret. As for penance, is that negotiable? Although categorisation is surely a worthy project, I'm not temperamentally cut out for that kind of task. Could I possibly swap that for collecting the stats for WP:ITE tomorrow? I was going to put it off for a few more days. :) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like more than a fair trade to me. Collecting the stats for ITE sounds much worse than assessing a few articles (and I meant "a few", meaning a single-digit number, not "all six or seven hundred").

Speaking of ITE, I hope that we get useful numbers, and if we don't, I hope that we can use them to estimate how long the trial would have to run to get useful numbers next time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a motivation thing. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

WLU, watch out who you mentor. I have an oedipus complex and I am part native american (apache - as in scalp 'um). :) PPdd (talk) 04:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm exceedingly busy for another day or so,. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

That's better. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Because I have noticed you commenting at the current RfC regarding Pending Changes, I wanted to invite you to the IRC channel for pending changes. If you are not customarily logged into the IRC, use this link. This under used resource can allow real time discussion at this particularly timely venture of the trial known as Pending Changes. Even if nothing can come from debating points there, at least this invitation is delivered with the best of intentions and good faith expectations. Kind regards. My76Strat 09:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

This is another place where I rememebered this coming up. PPdd (talk) 02:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Cheers. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Include "ethnicity, gender," to match all other guidelines

Wikilawyers have been trying to drive through a wording loophole in WP:BLP, saying ethnicity and gender of WP:EGRS don't apply to living persons, simply because the two words aren't in the policy. (Apparently, they think it should only apply to dead people.) I see that you have participated on this topic at the Village Pump.

They also are trying to remove the notability, relevance, and self-identification criteria at WT:EGRS, but that's another fight for another day, I'm simply too busy to watch two fronts at the same time.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 21:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the info, William. I'm not across those topics well enough to contribute but will watch with interest. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The way you describe this article having been handled might have ended up with a good end of improving Wikipedia, but the style of achieving that end goes against fundementals of my ways of interacting with others. I think if I wrote that article and did that, I would feel bad about myself. PPdd (talk) 04:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I'm sure it's an editing style not suited to many. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed the peacock on this page. I used to own a botanical garden specializing in cacti, succulents, bromilliads, exotic fruit trees, bonzai, and caudiciforms... with peacocks. The male peacock, when cornered, flies a little up in the air coming at you, its body at your head level, attacking with its flapping wings and beak aimed at your face, and just as it appears to be about to box you on both ears at once with its wings and you raise your hands to protect your ears, out pop its huge sharp talons from below and they gouge at your eyes. It was at the very top of the mountain above stanford u. surrounded by the open space preserve, and the peacocks kept dissapearing from their fully chicken wire encased night pens, with chicken wire even under the dirt floor of the pen. I could never find any breach in the chicken wire. One night, the last one disappeared. PPdd (talk) 04:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Mysterious. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Time magazine had a special two part series on pain in the March 7 edition. I'm not sure if Time is published in Australia. I only skimmed through it but it seemed fairly indepth.[15] These are some online articles.

• Health Special: Chronic Pain Some hurts are forever. But now science is pushing back #ixzz1Gndpkx9ihttp://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2053382_2055269_2055261,00.html
• Millions of Americans in Chronic Pain[16]
• Medicine: The Problem of Pain [17]

If you find any articles in Australian magazines on the prevalence of dysfunctional Americans with New York accents please let me know. 7mike5000 (talk) 21:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, Mike. Yep, there is an Australian edition of Time, so I'll check it out next time I'm in the library. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Template:Depression video has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. 134.253.26.6 (talk) 23:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Anthony. If you go to Category:Suffering (via the bottom of article Pain for instance), you can see the entry "Wikipedia:Invitation to edit/pain". I wonder how it appeared there, and how I could remove it. Do you have a clue? --Robert Daoust (talk) 22:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorted. Thanks for pointing that out. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the sorting, regards. --Robert Daoust (talk) 02:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey Anthony, I came across this, I'm sure your probably familiar with it but in case your not:

• http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:63vo0N2oHiQJ:foresttennant.com/pdfs/HUMAN_CHORIONIC_GONADOTROPIN_in_Pain_Management.pdf+human+chorionic+gonadotropin
• http://:intractablepaindisease.com

7mike5000 (talk) 20:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey Mike. I just noticed this. I've been hijacked by life lately. Thanks for pointing out HCG. I hadn't heard of it. I read through this and a couple of other mentions and it definitely looks like a promising new piece of weaponry in some pain conditions. I suspect it (and other hormones) might have a place in psychiatric therapy too. I'll keep an eye on it.

How are you doing? Is there anything you want me to look at in my mentor role, or anything you're particularly proud of that you'd like to show off? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I am discussing with the deleting admin prior to Deletion review. Bob19842 (talk) 13:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

As already pointed out to Bob on the undelete request page, there's a fundamental distinction between "List of Jewish Nobel laureates" and "List of convicted Jewish criminals". Namely, that the first list is a verifiable and fixed number, whereas there are no verifiable standards for the second list, which could expand into the thousands upon thousands if you listed every Jew that's ever been convicted of anything, clear down to jaywalking. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I favour deleting all race-based lists and categories. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

You may have noticed that Bob managed to talk himself into an indef, and dat was dat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I did. Good thing too. I thought he might have been making a point about the inappropriateness of ethnicity-based lists but, no. He appears to have some other motivation. :( --Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey Anthony:

Thank you for reverting an edit on my user page from April 13th. I didn't even notice it, mainly because I haven't done much in the way of Wikipedia for a while now (due to too much work and other day to day life issues). I hope you are doing well. Thanks again. --Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

(in case you didn't see it or it got deleted, this is what I just posted in the discussion of the Fibromyalgia page)The last time I editted it (yesterday, I heeded sciencewatcher's advice today), all I did was add "Critics of Frederick Wolfe point out that his current stance is the opposite of his former stance." Is that really too much to ask for? I didn't use any words like lie, deceit, dishonest, etc. - I just stated the fact that his current stance is the opposite of his former stance. Needless to say, it still got deleted.(end of excerpt from the discussion of the Fibromyalgia page)

I'm happy to settle for that simple, mild statement of "Critics of Fredericke Wolfe point out that his current stance is the opposite of his former stance." That leaves the reader to draw his/her own conclusions. Heck, in my opinion, it balances out the "highly cited" part that is already in there now, which is clearly meant to imply he is credible without providing any substantive link from often-cited to trustworthy. The word often could be used instead of highly, to actually be unbiased.

Anyway, I know you asked for an explanation as to how Fredericke Wolfe is known to have lied at least once, so I will provide it here. Note that I'm happy to settle for the above simple, mild statement that leaves the reader to draw his/her own conclusions. Without further ado:Fredericke Wolfe "wrote the landmark paper in 1990 that first created diagnostic guidelines for"* what is merely "stress, depression, and economic and social anxiety"** despite him previously claiming to have "identified a disease."**

• source: http://www2.timesdispatch.com/lifestyles/2009/jul/25/i-fibr0708_20090723-203408-ar-36199/
  • source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/14/health/14pain.html

How can someone who either lied in 1990 or is lying now be trusted? Fibromyalgia cannot be both "a disease" and merely "stress, depression, and economic and social anxiety." And, why should we trust him over other researchers, doctors, and patients who have been consistent from day one? This is what I mean: he lacks credibility. Whether an individual thinks he lied in 1990 when he claimed to have "identified a disease" or is lying now when claims that "disease" is merely "stress, depression, and economic and social anxiety," he is known to have lied at least once. The page should reflect this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darc0000 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Darc0000. I'm on the road, heading into the woods. I may be out of rang for a few days, but will read this hen I'm back in civilisation. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Tourette tic longer.GIF. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Had you noticed this has reopened? I only did today. I stopped looking in after discussion faded away. Now I've put it on my watchlist. I've just checked and find the preceding one was opened just over two years ago and has still not been closed and archived. Peter jackson (talk) 14:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Peter. I hadn't noticed. Streamlining the content dispute resolution process will require a better grasp of the present system, the philosophy of science, and epistemology than I have, so I won't contribute, but I'll watch with interest. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I have completed your request from the Graphics Lab; the new file is available at File:Pitcairn Islands-CIA WFB Map 2.png. Let me know if you want any further modifications or a vector version. Cheers! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much π. Would a vector version be sharper? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily sharper, but more zoomable. Unfortunately, it appears my bitmap-to-vector skills are not what they once were... Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah. Thank you for your help with this. It's a real improvement. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

You recently asked about how to create an article about a book and then created an article. However, you aparently did not get back to read the response that stated quite clearly that an article needs to have reliable third party sources that discuss it. You did not yet add such sourcing to the article you created, and Google books stated that they found "no reviews in the usual places". Can you provide the necessary coverage in third party sources or move the article to your user sandbox space (under the page move tab, enter a name like User:Anthonyhcole/draft ) while you look? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Active Banana (talk • contribs) 22:30, 25 May 2011

Hi Active Banana. I did read Danger's response at WP:EAR and was going to thank them and point them to the article when I'd finished with it. You are unlikely to find reviews for the book in the usual places. Danger pointed me to WP:BK which says

the bulk of standards delineated previously for mainstream books are incompatible in the academic bailiwick. Again, common sense should prevail. In such cases, suggested bases for a finding of notability include whether the book is published by an academic press, how widely the book is cited by other academic publications or in the media, how influential the book is considered to be in its specialty area, or adjunct disciplines, and whether it is taught or required reading in a number of reputable educational institutions.

On this basis the book is notable. I'm reading through the secondary academic sources now, to decide which to cite as I expand the article. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Umberto Saba.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 05:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Skier Dude. The image is too big for the article so I was wondering how to delete it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't control when someone else starts a discussion, so don't just revert things for no reason. -- Avanu (talk) 07:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, please take note of my response at Talk:Santorum (neologism)#The first line of the lead. Thank you. -- Avanu (talk) 07:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll respond there. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 07:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm thinking about what you said, and what I did. Won't be long. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Take your time, I *have* to go to sleep. Good luck. -- Avanu (talk) 07:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

And you thought you'd be getting some sleep tonight. :) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

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

-FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

From me also. -- Avanu (talk) 13:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Anthony, further to your query on my talk page, I've had a chance to look at the dictionary now, and have posted the intervening text between "intentional coinings without widespread usage" and "An example of deliberate coining ..." on the talk page. I don't know if it's just me, but wouldn't you agree that the claim that there is "a lot of text in the entire intervening passage" (i.e. too much to type out for another editor who asks) seems disingenuous, and that it's somewhat difficult to reconcile the way this source was originally used, and then discussed, with our customary assumption of good faith? --JN466 18:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, the original use was problematic. As for the lacuna, I suspect he just couldn't be bothered, which is human. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Anthony. Just a minor thing: I think you need to sign and date your statement, and also put it in chronological order (after Sadads and before Jayen). --Tryptofish (talk) 18:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. This is my first arb case. If you see me being procedurally clumsy again, I'd appreciate another nudge. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome, will do. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

If you want a copy of the American Speech article that mentions "santorum" send me a wiki email and I will attach it to the response. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 04:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the offer. I have emailed you. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Griswaldo. I haven't read it yet – I'm having a Santorum break. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		Awarded for debating a difficult and divisive topic with intelligence, class, and civility, and being part of the solution, rather than the problem. JN466 21:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Jayen. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey, how about earning that barnstar some more and reverting this edit? :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd be happy to if you could give me one good reason. He is toxic to this project. He specialises in insulting and intimidating users, including new users. Am I wrong? Or doesn't it matter? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• I think Cla was referring to this statement from a few days ago. --JN466 14:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, due to recent events a request for arbitration has been filed by ResidentAnthropologist (talk · contribs) regarding long standing issues in the "Cult" topic area. The request can be found at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Cults The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 07:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll watch with interest but don't imagine I'll have anything to contribute. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

[18] There was a study and/or book that came out within the last six months that substantiated that statement. I'll try and track it down. It basically said that all judgments and conclusions which were thought to have been based solely on reason, were found to have strong emotional components. Personally, I find this to be true when it comes to politics and law, where we find many rules and regulations that have little rational basis but lots of emotional impetus for their creation. A good and often cited example of this irrational nature of politics and law is the creation of drug laws in the United States, in particular the harsh sentencing guidelines that were created after Len Bias died from a cocaine overdose. Contrast this irrational use of the court system with evidence-based medicine and treatment solutions we find outside the US.[19] What's so incredibly interesting about this is that we find that the best outcomes take into account the emotions of the addicts and the reasons they are addicted, whereas the worst laws are based on the reasons offered by the lawmakers and their emotional need to create the law. Someone somewhere made the decision to create a need for more attorneys and law enforcement rather than to address and solve the problem. Viriditas (talk) 23:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I've read something similar; a primary study a year or so ago. Most of psychology is looking to higher cognition to explain behaviour and ignoring the foundations of cognition - feelings. And don't get me started on drug policy! That's pure tinfoil hat territory. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

[20]

[21][22] Anthonyhcole, you are a very nice person. Thanks for all of your help and advice. Blackie Lstreet (talk) 18:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure. Ideally, what will happen now is a couple of strong BLP editors will take an interest, and maybe even a strong law editor. If we stay out of it, they're more likely to step in because the environment will be less adversarial and they won't think "Anthonyhcole and Blackie seem to have things under control." (Though it's a long shot they'd ever think that.) If you allow the air to be filled with bickering, the really useful editors will steer away. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		Thank you for consistently working against the biased editing of biographies of living persons with rational and well thought-out arguments. Thank you also for standing up for people who speak up against tendentious editing and get bullied as a result of their efforts to balance the scales. Your fairness and clear-headed approach combined with your ability to remind those aiming to promote a less than neutral agenda of the actual issues at hand are much appreciated. DracoE 16:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 16, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 23:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Note [23]; you may get a better response from one of the drafters assigned to the case. --JN466 12:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Drafrers? There's so much I don't know about the processes here. NYB hasn't edited for a few days, I'll see if he responds and chase up others if not. Thanks for letting me know. --Anthonyhcole (talk)

Basically, the drafters are the arbitrators that follow the case in detail, and draft the proposed decision, based on their analysis of the evidence. The other arbitrators really only join when it is time to vote on the proposed decision; they're not necessarily all that involved in the case. --JN466 12:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah ha. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

So the only existing direct reference to BPD in The Big Hit is this: http://www.subzin.com/quotes/The%20Big%20Hit/I+mean,+you+might+suffer+from+a+borderline+personality+disorder, and I do not have any more sources than just my plain conviction that behaviour of the main character fits the criteria. Would it be sufficient? Anyway, thanks for the interest. 83.17.84.82 (talk) 20:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

No, that won't really cut it. Wikipedia is built on paraphrasing what experts say about a topic. Our own judgments and opinions are expressly ruled out by our "no original research" policy. This is most stringently applied in medical articles and biographies of living people, because of the real harm that errors might cause. If you ever encounter commentary on the character by a psychiatrist or medical expert, that would be a good source. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Anthony. I thought it more appropriate to reply here than on the DYK template. Sorry I didn't realise it was your first DYK; you have done so much work on WP that I thought you must be a veteran. "They" prefer DYK hooks to be quirky, but yours is too important to bother with that "guidance". Timing: you have no power over that. I've complained more than once; often one of my UK hooks has been published only during UK hours of darkness, and hardly anyone has seen it. They say it's too difficult to do it otherwise!

Just to say where I fit in. I'm a retired GP using WP to write on non-medical topics as a hobby. In the early 1960s I met (Dame) Cicely Saunders before she set up her first hospice, and was impressed by her philosophy of "treat the pain effectively BEFORE it gets bad, and then you won't create addicts with increasing demands for higher doses". And after all these years, the message has not yet been understood and applied. At least I think it does in the UK hospice movement, but not in medical practice generally. It's frustrating. Best wishes. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation, Peter. Nice to meet you. And thanks for pointing me to Dame Cicely. Wow.

I have no formal science training. I'm interested in the effect all forms of physical distress, such as pain, fatigue, sleep deprivation and hunger, have on frontal lobe function. But I decided to upgrade Pain a while back, and have found a number of very important sub-topics that are not mentioned there or covered by their own article. So I'll put frontal lobe function to one side for a bit and address those first. Thanks again for the review and advice. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep up the good work. WP needs the sort of material you produce. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

--Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations; you've made it, and in daylight hours. Hope it gets all the hits it deserves. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It should get a bit of exposure in this time slot. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Well it got over 2,000 hits, not brilliant, but it was seen by more than 2,000 people who would probably not have seen it but for DYK. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

True. It's slowly climbing up the Google rankings. #61 a couple of days after I posted it, now it's #41. Hopefully I'll have it finished before it gets to the top. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

According to your no original research policy, commentary from experts (e.g. psychiatrist) must be obtained as a reference. Here is an entire site made by Dr Leland M. Heller M. D. , one of the leading psychiatrists specializing in the treatment of borderline personality disorder.^[1] I have no affiliation with the author myself, however this particular psychiatrist's research, experience and treatment regimen for borderline personality disorder is a resource which should be mentioned in any article about the borderline personality disorder, particularly because he advocates the use of mood stabilizers in the treatment of BPD, namely Carbamazepine (Tegretol),^[2] in order to treat symptoms of the disorder. It is far more harmful than beneficial to dismiss mood stabilizers as "weak" when it comes to this disorder. Many doctors, general practitioners in particular who may not know too much about borderline personality disorder, may use wikipedia as their first port of call and may rely on this site as evidence that mood stabilizers are useless for borderline personality disorder in isolation, when in fact using it would have a good chance of helping the patient. In many cases a mood stabilizer can save a patient's life, given the impulsive nature and instability of borderline sufferers. Therefore, such a change in this article is quite urgent. Please verify the references to medical journals' clinical trials provided on site.

I attempted to make a small change regarding the proven efficacy of mood stabilizers, with a particular mention to carbamazepine, however it was promptly deleted, even with references. I fear that those editing the article are eager to maintain homeostasis in the article at the expense of the sufferers of borderline personality disorder, when in fact there are medications that can help. (Not simply for co-morbid conditions).

94.13.13.164 (talk) 08:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)James Brannigan, 3 September 2011

I'll reply at Talk:Borderline personality disorder, James, in case others interested wish to contribute to the discussion. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Anthony, Just wondering what the deal was with the Rfc on the "The Death of Chatterton" on the Suicide article. Thanks 7mike5000 (talk) 01:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I just saw your note at WT:Image use policy and have replied, on the off chance that it might be helpful (either now or in the future).

And I thought I'd take this opportunity to let you know I'm glad you're still active on Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Coming from the person I most admire on the project, that means a lot. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

This is not a joke. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

My apologies. I've retracted the barnstar. --Noleander (talk) 17:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Accepted. :) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Consensus is clearly in favor of an image. Please suggest a better one. Cheers. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Replied. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: suicide. I'm going to take my advice and shrug. Unwatching. Colin°^Talk 18:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Why? Not that you're under any obligation or anything. I'm wondering if I'm missing something, that might allow me to walk away and get on with other stuff. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how involved you are in the article. I only came to it from the WP:MED posting and I've said my piece and am now starting to repeat myself. The opinions seem fairly set and I could well be wrong. Pick your battles. This one doesn't seem, for me anyway, worth me getting upset about or falling out with folk I respect. I think I don't use the unwatch button enough to be honest. Colin°^Talk 19:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Not very. An editor I'm mentoring is quite invested in it, and I agree with his view. But, personally, I have no attachment to the issue. It just seems worth doing. I understand your position, but I'll persevere. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey Anthony, Sorry to have kind of left you hanging. You did an excellent job though and I have the tendency to be a long-winded melodramatic douche, I also have the penchant for saying **ck alot. Which of course telling somebody there an ******** **** would get me banned as the much vaunted WP:CIVIL hangs over my head like the Sword of Damocles.

I don't know what type of malfunction these people have, maybe some people get an (redacted) over enforcing their viewpoint despite it being contrary to basic commonsense. Also if you notice the individuals who are most vociferous for their inclusion of "an image" have contributed nothing of note to the article on suicide whatsover. So in my view they have an incredible pair of (redacted).

My base viewpoint on putting any type of gratuitous image on the suicide page is, if I parse away the melodramatic bullshit is: It's asinine, childish, pandering and irresponsible. And statements like this:

"First of all people who are depressed and suicidal will not be reading Wikipedia. Secondly we have movies such as Romeo and Juliet that romantise suicide to a much greater extent."

pretty much say it all. I guess the the people reading the articles major depressive disorder and suicide which collectively have 198,000 hits for September [24][25], were actually tring to find information on the Easter Bunny.

One of the reasons for the problems in the world is people are apathetic about the plight of others until they are the ones facing a problem. Martin Niemoller expressed that well in his famous statement. The Wikipedia article on suicide is the first one in the search results, it has the widest audience and has the potential to to either have a negative effect or a positive one. And the positive effect can be achieved without playing "advocate" by merely adhering to common sense and some modicum of professionalism.

Anyway you have done an outstanding job. 7mike5000 (talk) 01:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

RfCs usually run for at least 30 days unless obvious consensus is reached earlier. We're not there yet.

Last night a friend was observing that he wasn't getting the support he needed from his colleagues in an academic/political dispute at his university, even though many bystanders share his view. Some of those bystanders have enjoyed his opponent's support in past disputes and want to tap it in the future. I confess I do that kind of thing all the time. It means I'm more likely to win the ones that matter. There are editors here with whom I vehemently disagree on one topic they're heavily invested in, but I steer clear of that area (they're wrong but I'm not that interested), and they occasionally come to my aid in issues that matter to me. If I push too hard on points of disagreement I won't be able to count on their support for issues that matter to me but in which they have no investment or interest. Politics. I'm still learning this stuff, and Wikipedia's a pretty good place to learn it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I have observed some remarkable contributions from this account. I am curious as to why are you not an administrator. Pardon that you have struck me as the kind of editor who could be a good one, and that you seem qualified by a cursory review. You exemplify the essence of an Administrator without tools! I hope you will consider serving in the fuller capacity.

My76Strat (talk) 04:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you but I have no interest in any area of the project that requires those tools. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

That is certainly understandable. It is impossible to not notice where your efforts improve this encyclopedia, and therefor, I think it appropriate to have said these things. With emphasis, above all, on thanks! --My76Strat (talk) 04:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

You're very kind. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

	A big thank you
	Now that the excitement is over, it occurred to me that I hadn't thanked you properly for your invaluable support in recent months. Thanks, and happy days editing. JN466 23:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Anthony. I have just received email from Wiki informing that the information I have left on the wiki Enbrel cannot be added due to some regulations. I would like to publish similar content that comes from more valuable resource - an interview with a Director of Neurological Wellness Center - Meylin Acuna, M.D., authorized this Press Releasespecialist, published on http://www.prweb.com/releases/2011/6/prweb8511059.htm. It is about recovering from Alzheimer’s Disease with TNF-alpha Modulation. Can you help me? This might change life of many people. Thanks. feelsky (talk) 17:47, 02 Oct 2011 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I just reviewed your comment and think it was benign and helpful. Thanks for actually paying attention and pointing out where an EL might be warranted. So there is nothing to apologize for as far as I'm concerned. I'll reply to your comment on the wp:med discussion page in the next couple of days. Presto54 (talk) 01:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I have a different perspective on this, but I heard the group loud and clear. Presto54 (talk) 04:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Anthony, I'm contemplating changing my user name from 7mike5000 to .Doc Mike (request my opinion · grand accomplishments · email for good-looking women and wealthy people) Of course I am not really a doctor but I play one on Wikipedia.[26]. What do you think? Is it all me or what?

Really? I prefer the old one. :) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

It's either Doc Mike or Gertrude. I don't know why but sometimes I feel like a Gertrude.

Oh and here's an award, I'm not into the barnstar award thing, but I am into hot looking blonde awards and I thought you deserved one and I she looks a little better than a barnstar:

		Hot looking blonde award
		For like being able to deal with obstinate, egotistical people without resorting to calling them an (redacted) or a (redacted).Doc Mike (request my opinion · grand accomplishments · email for good-looking women and wealthy people) Of course I am not really a doctor but I play one on Wikipedia.[27].

I never called you egotistical!! --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I know that Anthony I just wanted to spruce up your page with some eye candy. Gertrude (Talk to Gertrude) 13:46, 10 October 2011

Sorry. mine was a joke that didn't translate to the page. :) I appreciate the thought, Trudy. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I figured it was a joke Doc Anthony:) -Doc Mike (Ask Doc Mike's Opinion) 15:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

If I ask another user to take a look at the Rfc on the suicide talk page, without saying anything else merely to take a look is that acceptable or will I be waterboarded and blocked? With the two other users who commented in the discussion section it is 10 for an image 9 against 7mike5000 (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Smells like canvassing to me. What's your rationale for inviting that particular editor? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

This user User:UserVOBO commented previously on the image issue.[28]. Thought maybe they would be interested in commenting again. 7mike5000 (talk) 12:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd have no problem with all editors who've discussed the use of images on that page being contacted. Picking individuals seems wrong. If you propose the former on the article talk page, I'll support it, and I can't imagine too many opposing it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Just User:UserVOBO, the person was fairly eloquent and succinct in his comments. So asking if they would care to weigh in on the subject again, I do not believe would be canvassing, but you know more than I do about "Der Rules". So if you think it's o'kay then either you or I can leave a message on his page. By the way with those who have left a comment in the discussion section it is 10 for and 10 against the inclusion of "artwork". If my good friend WhatamIdoing's comments are added then 11 for and 10 against. 7mike5000 (talk) 01:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I would view an invitation to UserVOBO, without inviting all others who've commented on images in the article, as canvassing. Also, UserVOBO doesn't appear to have been online for a couple of weeks. We've got Chatterton off the page and replaced him with the cerebral Socrates. I'm happy to drop the stick now, because I don't see any chance of stripping an emblematic image out of the lead. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

No image is preferable but I can deal with the Socrates image it's fairly banal. Thanks for your help an um speaking of help can I borrow five bucks?:)7mike5000 (talk) 15:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

please review talk page guidelines. deleting my entire post for no particularly good reason is not acceptable under policy. I'll overlook it once, but not twice. --Ludwigs2 05:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Stay off my talk page. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Um, wow, I know I am late to this party, but there are very few things an editor cannot remove from their own talk page. Anthony violated no talk page rules by removing any post from his page. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 02:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

All resolved now Rob. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Bonjour Anthony. I allowed myself to review your excellent edits on suffering. Please correct me if I did wrong. --Robert Daoust (talk) 16:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Cool. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Hiya, I've expanded my proposal to be a little more in depth. Your comments would be appreciated. Also willing to help out with the "Depictions..." section you're working on re-instating. And... in case you hadn't seen it, I added a little note to the section Tarc started that upset you. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 02:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey Anthony. Where are we with the invitation to edit? I know we trialed it a while ago. Are there any results to present? Hope all is well...

--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I just couldn't face pushing it any more against all the noise. I noticed this discussion the other day, so I told them about ITE in case it has any relevance to their project. This discussion between the Foundation developers and some interested editors explains their plans and the present state of the project. I think they could possibly incorporate the tutorial idea into their invitation to edit. (I'm secretly hoping someone from the Foundation will offer to process the results from our trial. I just can't confront that chore when I know I don't have the energy to sell and manage the subsequent large-scale trial to hundreds of Randy's) Let's see if anyone responds. --Anthonyhcole (talk)

Hey Anthony, I read your comment on the AFT talk page. I think your trial is an excellent idea! I would love to know the results. I have no idea how and what needs to be counted/ analysed. Maybe you could define some "chores" so that others can help you? (I have obviously no idea what I am talking about, sorry) I really like how simple the invitation to edit is and how it respects the functional design of Wikipedia - article page/ talk page/ WikiProjects. No additional MoodBar Feedback Dashboard, no new Article Feedback Tool page (look at this). I was wondering about an invitation that would ask readers for informed comment/review and lead/link on to "edit talk page". I know that this is less ambitious and possibly less fruitful than an invitation to edit, but it may be easier for readers. Did you consider this approach originally? (Just wondering) What do you think about it?

Anyways, I would like to hear more about the trial. What was your overall impression? Problems with vandalism? Would you recommend more articles for a trial (for example on german wikipedia for some subject) maybe 50, 100, 500? Thank you --Atlasowa (talk) 15:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, just seen User:Anthonyhcole/ITE Stats and User_talk:Anthonyhcole#Invitation_to_edit. Do you know http://stats.grok.se/ (Wikipedia article traffic statistics) and http://vs.aka-online.de/cgi-bin/wppagehiststat.pl (Wikipedia article edit statistics)? --Atlasowa (talk) 15:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Altasowa. It was a very small sample, so there was no obvious effect on editing behaviour, but something may emerge if the edit histories are subjected to sophisticated statistical analysis. I'll think about it a bit, and may approach the Foundation and ask if they would fund that. It should only be a couple of hours work for someone who knows what they're doing, but for me, by hand, with no experience, it's just too daunting. I'll let you know if there's movement on that. Where's the best project to find you? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey Anthony, your detailed analysis of the edit histories is definitely not the easiest task. Maybe start with something more general, less difficult? Did you ask for help or advice with the statistics/tables/graphs on Wikipedia:Village pump?

I think the most interesting questions on ITE are: 1) Does the invitation really convert readers to editors? Is there are measurable effect on edits? (quality of edits would be the next step) 2) How did you make this whole project? How much time / involved wikipedians does it need? Which technical skills were needed? (including a blueprint for the statistical part?) 3) What could be improved? The size of the sample? Take shorter and less complicated articles like localities/towns outside the wikipedia language area? These 3 things would be most interesting for users of smaller wikipedias that want to experiment with engaging/reaching out to readers.

It would also be interesting to compare the "invitation to edit" with the AFT/Article FeedbackTool. AFT has been on all enwiki articles since August 2011 [29]. A comparison of edits with ITE, AFT and "untouched" article would be very interesting. I think the AFT results are poor, considering how much time, effort, money and manpower were spent. "As of November 2011 on a single day on average 0.00017% of all page views to the entire English WIkipedia resulted in a rating being submitted"[30]. "Of the users that were invited to edit, 17% attempted to edit the page. 15% of those ended up successfully completing an edit." [31]. User question: "Can anyone point us to a single article that AFT improved?" gets no real answer [32]. But the developers are still upbeat: "Based on the research conducted by WMF, the tool shows promise in being an on-ramp for contribution."[33]

You can access the AFT stats for individual articles (like pain) here: http://toolserver.org/~dartar/aft2/?p=pain . You can best reach me on de:Benutzer Diskussion:Atlasowa. Have a nice day! --Atlasowa (talk) 10:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey Anthony When I get back from India/Nepal I will give you a hand crunching the data to see if we have anything useful. I have not been able to come up with anyway to increase participation. The scholarship idea has had little effect, the talks at 4 Universities has not yet amounted to much, one of my colleges at UBC recently started an ER wiki and was paying physicians $1000 per article written and this has not worked really either. Thus the ITE idea needs to be fleshed out more fully. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

India/Nepal? You lucky bastard. Let's have a strategy conversation when you get back. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey Anthony. Brandon Harris, Howie Fung, Fabrice Florin and I will be holding a second Office Hours session on IRC in #wikimedia-office on Thursday, 3 November at 24:00 UTC. This unusually late time is aimed at permitting East Coast editors, who would normally be at work, to attend. We will be discussing the new Article Feedback Tool designs; if you have any questions about it, feel free to leave me a message on my talkpage. I hope to see you there; thank you for your participation in the discussion so far :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey dude! Okay, the logs are now out - see this - and I'll be posting some of the more interesting or contentious points to the talkpage just to spur on discussion. Hope to see you there :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't know if you want to participate, but you should be aware of this - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User_talk:Ludwigs2_on_Talk:Muhammad.2Fimages --Ludwigs2 01:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for this. By the way, I like the originality of your user page lay-out. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 10:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

You know, I respect that your viewpoints are the same between Muhammad and Richard I (which is my favourite example). I think you honestly believe that. Everyone else tries to make excuses and distinctions. Consistency in views is good; I may disagree with your view, but at least I know your view is honest. Now, I disagree with you on the argument that such images have no value beyond a section about how Muhammad has been depicted, because I disagree that such images lack value on either article. These are viewpoints that we aren't likely to come to agreement on, so I won't belabour the point. The goal, ultimately, is to find a situation that everyone can live with. I will admit to being a skeptic on that point, because the fact that a number of compromises have already been made is simply disregarded by those who insist we host no images. So I do apologize if it seems I (and many who share my view) seem unwilling to compromise. It isn't that we are unwilling, it is that we feel we've done so far too often. Eventually a line has to be drawn.

I am glad you agree that there is value to the images, albeit in limited places on the article. This at least gives us a starting point from which to work. First, western views. Clearly the western world has no such prohibitions, so there should be no issue with the existing image. I would argue that the section is large enough to warrant a second image, and if I were to choose, I would use the SCOTUS frieze as it demonstrates the view that he was a bringer of laws. And, as you note, a depictions section would be valuable. There are three ways by which Muhammad has been depicted, traditionally, by Muslims at various points: no alteration, face blanked out, or represented as a Flame. The prose itself will likely be small, given we don't want to rewrite Depictions of Muhammad, but rather lead into it. Might I suggest a four-image gallery to anchor that section? One depiction unaltered, one with face blanked, one of calligraphy, and a Hilya. These are all Muslim traditional depictions, and with proper captions, will serve educational value.

So, what to do with the rest of the article? Certainly the calligraphy would be featured and the images Jayen proposed on Jimbo's talk page, etc. Most of the existing mosques. I would suggest that File:Muhammad destroying idols - L'Histoire Merveilleuse en Vers de Mahomet BNF.jpg is actually fine, given that Muhammad is not depicted at all, but is shown as a flame/cone. I would argue that there is didactic value to such an image, as it (ironically) visually depicts the very controversy we are arguing today! The image of the Black Stone incident I would support removing for two reasons: 1. It is not mentioned in prose at all, and 2. there are probably too many images in this article at present. Jayen's additions today have brought the total to 26, and the result is several spots where images pile on top of each other. The gallery I propose above would mitigate this somewhat, but I would suggest an overall reduction is warranted. That would, I think, include one existing depiction, one calligraphic rendering (perhaps by collapsing one of the templates, each of which has a calligraphic rendering) and one other.

So the end result I would propose, all of which brings value in my view, would leave us with five depictions: Two in western views, two in the depictions gallery, and the destruction of idols image that doesn't actually show him anyway. An expansion of the article to restore the depictions section would move several images around, which coupled with a few removals would help balance the article for all types of images, and spread them out better. There would be two fewer Muslim depictions (reducing to three total), and one additional western. What do you think of this? Resolute 02:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't actually think any of the pictures presently depicting the face of Muhammad in the article are utterly without didactic value. I may have said or implied that, but I usually temper it as "little or no value" or "limited". But I believe none of them is important to the article or the section they're in, and all could be easily dispensed with or replaced by images of equal or greater value that don't offend readers. My main concern is with: the intercalary months prohibition, the stone, and angel Gabriel. All date from at least 500 years after the events depicted. The stone and Gabriel both show hair down to his chest, whereas Ali's description has hair to below the ears. If they have any value it is with regard to later artistic tradition which will be touched on in the new section we're discussing and treated thoroughly in Depictions of Muhammad.

As for Western reception, I'd favour replacing the present "Muhammad preaches" with a good picture of the SCOTUS Muhammad, as the latter's physical place says more about Western reception than either image alone does. I agree there is room for another image in that section and would favour a contemporary (medieval) illustration of the medieval European view. Perhaps "Wife scolding the drunken Muhammad" or "Faith stepping on Muhammad." [34] They show the disrespectful tone without the ghastliness of the Dante illustrations.

As for the gallery in the (yet-to-be-created) depictions section. I can't see that looking anything but clumsy and overloaded, given that we're agreed it shouldn't be much bigger than a paragraph or so. I'd like to see the section illustrated with a defaced image ideally. Flame could be represented by the picture of Muhammad destroying icons elsewhere in the article, and veil by Muhammad advancing on Mecca. Calligraphy and hilya are also represented elsewhere in the article. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• "Greater value that don't offend readers" is the problem, because I don't judge merit on the basis of what some people find offensive. And I cannot because to do so would violate Wikipedia's core policy of NPOV in my view. However, I don't think you and I are far off on what could be acceptable image alignment/replacement. I am open to a discussion on whether one depiction offers greater value than another. Also, if not a four-image gallery in a depictions section, then perhaps an unaltered and defaced image side by side in something like a collage format, with a single caption noting the periods from which each type was most common? Personally, I think it is important (and valuable) to show that even Muslims themselves have depicted Muhammad without any defacement, while making it clear that it is very uncommon today. Resolute 16:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

If one image has greater educational worth than another, and only one is needed, I hope we'd both use the better image regardless of whether one was considered offensive.

Provided they don't overload the section, the more pictures the better, but I just can't imagine a small section on depictions comfortably accommodating more than one image. Feel free to prove me wrong. If only one image fits well, I'd prefer it to be something that depicted the general prohibition, and a defaced, veiled or flame image would do that best. But if that's necessary, natural representation could be used elsewhere in the article, in an image illustrating another section. The text of the section will make it clear natural depictions were also around.

I've asked Johnbod if he'd like to put together the depictions section. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

What I had in mind was something like what I did here for two logos. By necessity, using two images side by side in the Muhammad article would require an eye towards good examples that can be clear at a slightly smaller resolution than the norm, and/or can be cropped to fit without losing the intended purpose of the images. Resolute 15:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

By all means. But they're logos; the images we're talking about are fiddly and detailed and may not be readable at that size. But I have no problem with your proposal provided it works. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I will see what I can come up with, but it probably won't be today. My one concern about the proposed depictions section is that for some editors, the end game is removal of all images, regardless of context. I think it likely that even if we settle this issue for now in this fashion, someone will attempt to axe the entire section (again) as a means of chopping down whatever images are contained. Resolute 17:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, in that section, and in Western reception, there are strong and obvious grounds for relevance of the images, and the sections themselves are certainly notable. Let's see what John comes up with. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

• There's currently some further discussion of the above on my talk page. --JN466 20:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I noticed. Thanks for letting me know, though. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Posting it here as well. Sorry I already dropped a thing on the page saying its good with me on removal barring any new viewpoints that come up (i.e. someone presenting a good reason to remove it.) Tivanir2 (talk) 17:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

That should read to i.e. someone posting a good reason NOT to remove it. Tivanir2 (talk) 17:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I hadn't noticed. That page is massive. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

In what way was my comment inappropriate? Did you also criticise the poster to whom I was responding? He DID post biased garbage when he said "No one expects to have a photo of a naked woman..." That's simply grossly wrong, and I'm getting sick of such rubbish. It's all about editor's having narrow views, thinking everyone else (or everyone that matters?) thinks just like them. So why should I stop highlighting it? HiLo48 (talk) 09:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Relax, Mr Kettle. It's not that important. This issue, offensiveness/astonishment vs censorship is extremely subtle, or complex, or both. The Foundation has suggested we take into account the principle of least astonishment when placing content. How editors interpret that, and whether they believe it should apply to this project is being discussed in many venues. Treat good faith contributions to that debate with patience and respect, even when they seem ill-considered. It looks to me like your patience is wearing thin. Don't damage your reputation over one, relatively unimportant instance. --Mr Pot (talk) 11:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

what happened with this edit? [35] It's just a date stamp without your handle, and it's very confusing.

~~~~~ Five tildes. Three tildes is name without date, I think. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Well I knew that. I just don't know why you did it that way - lol. --Ludwigs2 15:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

It's you! Ludwigs. :) It was a typo. I've fixed it. --Anthonyhcole (talk)

Would you please test out the new script for finding (possibly) medicine-related articles that need to be patrolled? The directions are at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#New_page_toy. I'd like to get a couple of people trying it out for a few days as sort of beta-testers before we try to announce it to more general audiences. So I'm picking a handful of WPMEDers who seem generally sensible and asking them to give it a go. Whatever your experience, if you decide to try it out, please post a note at WT:MED (where Fred has a chance of seeing it). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Great. Tomorrow. It's bedtime here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out if this is identical to Folium (vermis), in which case they should be merged. I don't know enough to say. Can you clear this up? Wareh (talk) 15:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The Folium (vermis) is one of many folia on the outer surface of the cerebellum. Will you be sorting out the wikilinks on articles that presently link to Folium but should now link to the new title Folium (brain), or should I? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, and I've finished the link-disambiguation. Wareh (talk) 20:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

You may be interested in this. Peter jackson (talk) 18:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey, all! A quick update on how version 5 of the Article Feedback Tool is developing. I'm sending this to both newsletter recipients and regular participants, because I appreciate we've been a bit quiet :).

So, we're just wrapping up the first round of user contributions. A big thank you to everyone who has contributed ideas (a full list of which can be found at the top of the page); thanks almost entirely to contributions by editors, the tool looks totally different to how it did two months ago when we were starting out. Big ideas that have made it in include a comment voting system, courtesy of User:Bensin, an idea for a more available way of deploying the feedback box, suggested by User:Utar, and the eventual integration of both oversight and the existing spam filtering tools into the new version, courtesy of..well, everyone, really :).

For now, the devs are building the first prototypes, and all the features specifications have been finalised. That doesn't mean you can't help out, however; we'll have a big pile of shiny prototypes to play around with quite soon. If you're interested in testing those, we'll be unveiling it all at this week's office hours session, which will be held on Friday 2 December at 19:00 UTC. If you can't make it, just sign up here. After that, we have a glorious round of testing to undertake; we'll be finding out what form works the best, what wording works the best, and pretty much everything else under the sun. As part of that, we need editors - people who know just what to look for - to review some sample reader comments, and make calls on which ones are useful, which ones are spam, so on and so forth. If that's something you'd be interested in doing, drop an email to okeyes@wikimedia.org.

Thanks to everyone for their contributions so far. We're making good headway, and moving forward pretty quickly :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)