User talk:Anthonyhcole

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

To leave me a message, click here, type into the box, and click "save page."
Archives of this talk page: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

Book: The Origins of Political Order[edit]

Hi, Anthony. I just read your input in Talk:The Origins of Political Order. You added a number of reviews in talk, but stopped short of introducing them into the article. I also so that you removed the "notable" warning. I came back to wikipedia recently, and decided to have another go at the article. I started the article years ago, not because I am good at it, but because I thought the book was notable. Almost all of my input was deleted, since its only source was the book itself, and possibly because my way of writing a synopsis of the book was a bad way of writing the article. I decided to have a go again yesterday.

Questions:

  1. Have you by any chance read the book?
  2. Could you give me some concrete advice on how to write the article?
  3. Why did you not include the reviews in the article itself under "external links"? (Perhaps I should remove the ones I added?)
  4. I can not find that the book has been awarded any major award, but perhaps being listed among three "best books of 2011" lists is enough for it be formally "notable"?
  5. Can I can remove the warning tag at the top of the article now? Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 12:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I added those reviews to the talk page for the benefit of anyone wanting to expand the article. I did read the book a year or two ago. I've only written a couple of book articles and I did it by reading all the reviews and arguments about the book that I could find and, once I'd gotten a grip on what expert readers thought the book was about, I summarised (and cited) a couple of the more comprehensive reviews - which seems to be what you're doing. Don't worry about its notability, that list of reviews on the talk page more than establishes its notability. I've removed the tag.
If you expand that article's prose five times in five days (you're nearly there) it will be eligible for an appearance on the main page Did you know? section. The advantage of that is (a) regulars at DYK are likely to take a look and offer advice or help with the article and (b) the article will get a lot more visitors while it's mentioned on the main page, and they too are likely to add some scrutiny and advice. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, I have continued working on it. I think I may have the core ideas in the article now. It is a bit bottom-heavy on the reviews list, but perhaps that is a good thing. Far from all reviews are in there. Yet.
I am speculating on whether it might be attainable for me to make this a featured article. I am not a good writer, but it may be time for me to learn. Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 09:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Why not? Take a look at some recently-promoted book FAs and use them as templates. I'm pretty sure you don't need to cite all the reviews, if that's what you mean. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I added a bit more. I tried to look up what was needed to make an assessment of the article to a start-class article, but it seems one has to start a big project for that. You suggested that one might get interest by adding something to "Did you know?". There are certainly many interesting details in the book, but I am not sure whether any such general interest points can be gleaned from the article as it stands. Do let me know if you have any suggestions off hand. Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 21:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Nice illustrations. There are some sections that don't cite a source - Series of books, A race between the Criteria, No road map for the future: you should be able to source all of that from one or more of the reviews. The "hook" line you choose as a teaser for Did You Know doesn't have to be truly surprising or shocking; a lot of them are quite banal - but the more intriguing or novel it is, the more views you're likely to get. Maybe "Did you know that Francis Fukuyama has written a theory of the origins of human political order founded on chimpanzee political order?" (If that's true - my memory is an imperfect organ.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:23, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your compliment on the illustrations :)
I shall see if I can get the citations done today.
As I recall the chimps, they were used to illustrate that we are warlike and that the original human social unit was not the family, but warlike hunter gatherer bands. "A theory based on" might be stretching it a bit, but perhaps some similar phrasing might work. "starting with chimpanzee political order?" , perhaps?
I am speculating along a few other "Did you know that" lines, like the ones below. They are both taken directly from the book. I can use the book itself as a reference, can't I?
I suppose I will need to connect them into the article itself in some natural way first. And also getting the name of the book into the 1 and 2 below into the "advertising" copy just like you did in the chimp story.
1 Did you know that "finding the Justinian laws in Bologna led to the founding of the first university (that issued degrees) in the world in Bologna. People came from all over Europe to Bologna to learn about the re-discovered laws, as wanted to use them all over Europe. These laws in turn gave the Pope Gregory VII enough power to Excommunicate Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor ( twice), and force him to Walk to Canossa from Germany to Italy, barfoot, in the snow. These same laws gave rights to women and led to half lands owned in Northern Spain and Southern France to belong to women, and half the mayors being women, establishing near equal rights to women.
2 Did you know that Mamluk slaves, who were the ruling class of Egypt, Mandarin beauraucrats, who were the ruling class of China and Catholic priests were all forbidden to marry for the same reason? To defeat corruption.
3 Did you know that Francis Fukuyama has written a theory of the origins of human political order from historical orders, starting with chimpanzee political order?" Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 09:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Are multiple "Did you know" -notes from the same article a good idea, or should I try to "pick" the best? Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 09:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm no DYK expert but I think you can propose several hook options. I like your hooks, but there is a word limit and I think they exceed it. Whatever hooks you propose, their substance should be found (and supported by a reliable source) in the text of your article. Yes, "starting with" is a better way of putting it. (Must re-read it.) Do you know if he's following through with volume two? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
The companion volume Political Order and Political Decay will be published in 2014.http://fukuyama.stanford.edu/ Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 14:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I added citations to the areas you reminded me to do. I slashed the section "No road map for the future". It was harder than I thought to find citations for what i did NOT write, and it is not important for the article. I added the three DYK-texts with citations. Some were by necessity from the book itself. I have used "chapters" instead of pages for the in-book citations, since I lent the book to a friend. Is that a problem, do you think? Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 18:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Not for DYK, I think. Someone at GA or FA might insist on page numbers, though. Consider emailing Fukuyama and asking him to scan your article for misunderstandings or emphasis - especially if you're thinking of taking it to GA or FA. I've had very useful feedback from authors in the past. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I shall email Fukuyama at some point. I just bought the kindle edition of the book to be able to cite pages easier. There may be a conflict between DYK and balanced emphasis. I do not think that the three DYK points I wrote into the text are a core part of the book. They were just a few of the many points in the book that I found to be fascinating. One could go different ways here. I could delete the DYK points to restore emphasis balance. I could just use them for DYK and delete them later. I could expand the article with much more info, but at some point it may become too large. Thank you for answering all of my questions :) Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 10:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I seem to have started to expand the article. To me, it was also an interesting book of history of China and India. Fukuyama is a bit conservative in trying to explain the stability of states with three components, but it is a framework as good as any. Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 11:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
OK. But your five days from starting the 5x expansion are nearly up, aren't they? Don't worry if the hook looks a little out of place in the article. Please try to avoid WP:OR. That is, please don't insert your interpretation or summary of the book - only use interpretations and summaries of reliable reviewers. It's OK to cite the book very occasionally, but even there it is best to do so only if one of the reviewers you're using refers to that part of the book - and in that case cite the reviewer too. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I just added. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Did_you_know_nominations/The_origins_of_political_order . I have not even checked how to check for 5 days expansion rule. I shall take this as a learning experience, since I know almost nothing about DYK-ing. The knowledge may come in handy in the future, regardless of whether the nomination goes through or not. Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 11:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
And added this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Did_you_know#April_27 Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 11:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC) aaaaand removed it from april 27 to march 25th.... Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 13:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I've found the regulars at DYK very helpful. If I can help with anything, let me know. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
The article was "good to go" for DYK a couple of days ago. I imagine that it may get moved to the DYK queue sometime. I have rechecked my references and tried to polish a little where I found my references lacking. I shall see if the DYK and a future email to the author might lead and adjust from there.I saw that you made an improvement, and expressed appreciation of the article, which of course made me happy :) Thank you for your great help! Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 15:52, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Operculum[edit]

Just to say thanks for the thanks - I was hoping I hadn't 'trod on anybody's toes'! Iztwoz (talk) 19:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

One can't move here without treading on toes, Iztwoz - but you step very lightly. :o) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Electronic cigarettes[edit]

Hi there. I'd be happy to summarise my proposed edits, why I think they're appropriate and how I've sourced them, but as this thing is expanding all over the place I'm not quite sure of the best place to do so. The article talk page? Any advice would be much appreciated!--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 19:10, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I'd do it on the article talk page. Something like your response to Ocassi on your talk page, but shorter and with easy links to everything. Ignore for the time being all the interpersonal controversy and charges/counter-charges of improper behaviour, if you possibly can. Just focus on what matters, the article - at least for now --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:31, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Great, thanks. I'll add some links.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 19:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

Thank you for sorting out the order of the bullet points. The bullet points on the page were automatically generated by the template (the order was probably because I posted the template at Sarah Jane Brown rather than Sarah Brown. I am not going to be around after tonight to participate in the discussion, but I hope it goes well. Thank you for all of your help. 86.137.46.209 (talk) 00:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

OER inquiry[edit]

Hi Anthonyhcole, I'm sending you this message because you're one of about 300 users who have recently edited an article in the umbrella category of open educational resources (OER) (or open education). In evaluating several projects we've been working on (e.g. the WIKISOO course and WikiProject Open), my colleague Pete Forsyth and I have wondered who chooses to edit OER-related articles and why. Regardless of whether you've taken the WIKISOO course yourself - and/or never even heard the term OER before - we'd be extremely grateful for your participation in this brief, anonymous survey before 27 April. No personal data is being collected. If you have any ideas or questions, please get in touch. My talk page awaits. Thanks for your support! - Sara FB (talk) 20:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

For your involvement in the spectacle at Talk:Sarah Jane Brown[edit]

Rainbow trout transparent.png Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.

On a serious level, your actions and comments may have been well-intended, but it should be fairly clear that there are a number of issues I am alluding to when I left this comment. If you are not clear about that, I'm happy to elaborate (but there would be at least a couple of extra issues to add to the matters I raised with the user who reverted the closure after your reversion was reverted. Either way, I hope you will take the feedback in the spirit that it is intended. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Notice of RfC 2 and request for participation[edit]

There is an RfC on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page which may be of interest to editors who participated in "RfC: Remove Nazi gun control argument?" on the Gun control talk page.

Thank you. --Lightbreather (talk) 22:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Just a ping on this (above).
Also, you were re-thinking your vote on the related RfC - RfC: Remove Nazi gun control argument? - on the Gun control talk page. Can I help you with that? Lightbreather (talk) 00:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Done. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Invitation join the new Physiology Wikiproject![edit]

Physiology gives us an understanding of how and why things in the field of medicine happen. Together, let us jumpstart the project and get it going. Our energy is all it needs.

Based on the long felt gap for categorization and improvization of WP:MED articles relating to the field of physiology, the new WikiProject Physiology has been created. WikiProject Physiology is still in its infancy and needs your help. On behalf of a group of editors striving to improve the quality of physiology articles here on Wikipedia, I would like to invite you to come on board and participate in the betterment of physiology related articles. Help us to jumpstart this WikiProject.

  • Feel free to leave us a message at any time on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
  • You can tag the talk pages of relevant articles with {{WikiProject Physiology|class=|importance=}} with your assessment of the article class and importance alongwith. Please note that WP:Physiology, WP:Physio, WP:Phy can be used interchangeably.
  • You will make a big difference to the quality of information by adding reliable sources. Sourcing physiology articles is essential and makes a big difference to the quality of articles. And, while you're at it, why not use a book to source information, which can source multiple articles at once!
  • We try and use a standard way of arranging the content in each article. That layout is here. These headings let us have a standard way of presenting the information in anatomical articles, indicate what information may have been forgotten, and save angst when trying to decide how to organise an article. That said, this might not suit every article. If in doubt, be bold!
  • Why not try and strive to create a good article! Physiology related articles are often small in scope, have available sources, and only a limited amount of research available that is readily presentable!
  • Your contributions to the WikiProject page, related categories and templates is also welcome.
  • To invite other editors to this WikiProject, copy and past this template (with the signature):
  • To welcome editors of physiology articles, copy and past this template (with the signature):
  • You can feel free to contact us on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. You can also put your suggestions there and discuss the scope of participation.

Hoping for your cooperation! DiptanshuTalk 12:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Re: Won't go from "Describe" to "Use" page when I click "Next"[edit]

Thanks for [1] and [2], I filed it as bugzilla:64699. We need more information, please help. --Nemo 08:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors![edit]

please help translate this message into the local language
Wiki Project Med Foundation logo.svg The Cure Award
In 2013 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you so much for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date medical information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do!

We are wondering about the educational background of our top medical editors. Would you please complete a quick 5-question survey? (please only fill this out if you received the award)

Thanks again :) --Ocaasi, Doc James and the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation

Talk:Sarah Brown[edit]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Sarah Brown and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, 131.111.185.66 (talk) 03:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

A quick request[edit]

Anthony, would you mind copying the arbitration request to the main page? I am unable to do so and I am worried that it might confuse editors. I am asking you because you seem to be available at this time. I apologise if this causes any trouble for you. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 04:12, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd be happy to oblige but what page do you want it moved to? (Isn't it in the right spot now?) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Anthony. It is currently on the talk page! The main page is protected, so I cannot edit it. It should be posted after 'Requests for arbitration' and before 'Requests for clarification and amendment'. The code on the talk page can be copied directly: I do not think anything other than a simple copy and paste is required. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 04:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Oh. I see. In that case, I won't do the move because I don't think a case is justified. It is probable some other parties do think a case is appropriate, so I suggest you ask one of them to move it. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:38, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, I shall make a general edit request. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 04:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

YGM[edit]

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

--Hordaland (talk) 12:54, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Case request declined[edit]

The arbitration request involving you (SarahBrown) has been declined by the Arbitration Committee The comments made by arbitrators may be helpful in proceeding further. For the Arbitration Committee,--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Cord Blood Registry[edit]

The current article shows strong signs of COI editing, such as extensive profiles on the executive team. I offered to help them on a pro-bono basis to repair the article from their prior COI mistakes by putting together a proposed stub on the article. Since it was another medical-related company, your name came to mind and I was wondering if you had the time to take a look at my proposed stub and verify whether it would be an improvement. I felt there were too many controversies surrounding the company in this case for it to work out to bring it to GA in a COI role, but we can at least strip it down to a better starting point and make amends for their prior mistakes. CorporateM (Talk) 15:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Replied at Talk:Cord Blood Registry#Propose stubbing this article. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

RE:Talk:Schizophrenia#One sentence simple description of schizophrenia[edit]

I've replied and changed the wording again. Let me know if this is better. ATC . Talk 11:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I replied again. ATC . Talk 03:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Move review notification[edit]

Because you participated in the most recent discussion regarding the proposed move of Hillary Rodham Clinton, you are hereby notified per Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification that the administrative determination of consensus from that discussion is being challenged at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 May. Please feel free to comment there. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

hahaha[edit]

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-27586356 - some of your mates? trust you are well - we still havent had that coffee after all this time... satusuro 16:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

It's a crap study on several levels but, to be fair, so are most of the studies that say Wikipedia's medical content is awesome. A couple of reviews have been done recently - of all the peer-reviewed studies of our medical content - but I haven't had a chance to read them yet. I'll be very surprised if they can draw any conclusions about our accuracy. I'll ping you here when I've read them. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Nope. It was only one (2012) unpublished review [3] and it covered all the academic literature studying Wikipedia - not just our medical content. We need a more detailed critical review of just those studies assessing the accuracy of our medical content. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
User:SatuSuro, I'm going to London on 4th August, would you like to meet up for coffee before then? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I am probably going as well - but if you know the jokes made by the late douglas adams about probability and improbability, and my having lived within a short distance of where Beryl Hume ex UWA maths lecturer and author of 'Probability and Statistics' - its probably a good idea before you go... I am sure I am going, but there are a number of impediments at this point in time, I am hoping in the probability of them being removed. If you still have my mobile number, give me a call and if youre into coffee in the city - sounds good. satusuro 16:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
What about the library or art gallery coffee shops? Or, that one in Forrest Place under Myers is nice on a sunny day. I've lost your number. Do you want to email me with it? It's my bedtime now, I'll ring you tomorrow. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Ebook Reader[edit]

Hi Anthony, I've proposed changes to the two ebook reader app pages (iOS and Android) AlexAtEbooks (talk) 16:23, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Royal Society/Neuroscience Wikipedia Edit-a-thon at the Royal Society, June 2014[edit]

Ping! Saturday morning, UK time. Please communicate via the event talk page - let us know when you are active etc, and add any work done to that section. Note the new list of RS journal articles that will be released to be freely available online from 6-8 June. Wiki at Royal Society John (talk) 00:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Moved discussion from Wllm's talk page[edit]

Hello AHC, I moved part of the discussion here since it seemed to be branching into different topics.

I know: "Hey, it's a wiki, dude. Like, you know, the invisible hand and stuff. We trustees say cool stuff about freedom and the wisdom of the dysfunctional mob and, like magic, everything will be groovy. Man. So, we treat our BLP subjects with contempt. So we have weirdos chatting up kids. So our medical stuff can't be trusted. Hey, WP:EVENTUALISM dude." You don't get it. Really.
The top Google result for nearly every query is unreliable and you don't care enough. That's where I come from. I don't mean to hurt your feelings here. That's an unwanted side effect of saying what needs to be said. Sorry. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello Anthonyhcole, you won't hurt my feelings. But hospitality affects who engages with you and whether people take time to hear what you have to say.
You may be right that I don't know where other commenters on this page are coming from (though I'm not yet convinced), but you certainly don't know where I am coming from - since I don't advocate most of the ideas you're ascribed to me above. (Is your wiki apologist a 70s-era Californian?) I'd be happy to have a discussion about eventualism at some point. – SJ +
FYI, I pointed you to that discussion about human dignity when it began here but you ignored it. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Regarding "It seems to me that most contributors want to respect basic human dignity ... I see few serious proposals for change." I think SlimVirgin's proposal in the above-linked discussion is a serious proposal. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
You mean the proposal to add "and dignity" to the lead section of WP:BLP? That was a good if limited proposal. It had a fair bit of support. However, conflating dignity with a specific resolution for naming disputes muddied the discussion. Your final comment on that thread a month ago was that you wanted to take time to ruminate on the issue. What are your thoughts now? – SJ +
SJ, I've decided I need to learn more about the notion, human dignity. I've started reading a book on it, but I'm not far along. I'm thinking "human dignity" may be a poor choice of words. The notion, philosophically, seems to be rooted in Kant, who used it to mean a kind of value inherent in humans that renders them worthy of respect. Its very existence as a thing is being challenged now, and the author I'm reading claims Kant never even meant that such a thing existed, and has been misread all these years. I'll keep you informed. If I'm reading this right, it might be wiser to use another form of words, probably including "respect", maybe "insult", "humiliate", "offend". --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Regarding your comment on disclaimers above (#here), the "global disclaimer" you're referring to is one tiny little word at the bottom of the article. Effectively useless. It's an ass-cover. If you ever get around to asking our readers (that much-neglected stakeholder) any serious questions, you might ask how many of them have read our global disclaimer. I've described our failure to put a prominent disclaimer at the top of our medical content as both immoral and psychopathic. "Immoral" isn't just a casual epithet to fling at people I'm annoyed by. It is an apt description of that callous neglect. Callous disregard for the welfare of others pretty much defines psychopathy. Your characterisation of my analysis as name-calling is a measure of the strength your grasp of the moral dimension at play here. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I mention the global disclaimer because it should be more visible for all topics, not only the custom disclaimers for legal and medical. The question of design -- where and how to display a change that would appear on every page -- seems to be the main barrier for trying anything out, rather than any lack of moral conviction. Let's find a way to overcome that. – SJ + 22:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Still thinking about the above. I have house guests and can't spare the attention I believe the above deserves just now. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Sj, I just wanted to thank you for this series of edits. I will address the above, but am still thinking. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

+1[edit]

Barnstar of Humour.svg The Barnstar of Good Humor
Kudos for your words on Jimbotalk: "Would someone please Rev Del this thread? It's entheta that draws attention to a potential trouble source who's under the influence of suppressive persons, and I'm sure the sole source of Wikipedia has more important things to attend to. Wikipedia is a safe space." Carrite (talk) 05:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Your reversion on Muhammad[edit]

No, the previous language was not "clearer and more informative", it was simply wrong. The exception is being taken to the belief of Muslims.

  1. Possible correct sentence: "Muslims, with the exception of the Ahmadi[note], almost universally believe Muhammad to be ...". There is an exception case among the Muslims about the belief in Muhammad.
  2. Possible correct sentence:"Muhammad is almost universally[note] believed by Muslims ...". There is an qualification to "universally" as used to decribe the belief in Muhammad by Muslims.
  3. Absolutely incorrect: "Muhammad, with the exception of Ahmadi Muslims, is almost universally ..." Muhammad is a group that includes a group called the "Ahmadi Muslims", and that group doesn't behave the same way as the rest of Muhammad.

If you think it necessary to explicitly call out the Ahmadi in the lead, I don't have a problem with that. My edit is aimed solely at correcting the grammar. It surprises me that none of us noticed this error while we were wrestling with whether "almost universally believed" was appropriate or not.—Kww(talk) 15:31, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

You're right, the existing language (though grammatically correct) is clearer and, given the belief of the Nation of Islam, truer. I'll leave it as is. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:16, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Cancer pain/Comment[edit]

Hello Anthonyhcole,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Cancer pain/Comment for deletion, because it seems to be promotional, rather than an encyclopedia article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. ow@!s (talk) 13:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Request Edit[edit]

Hi Anthony. I was wondering if you had time to take a look at this request edit. I've been having a hard time finding an editor with sustained interest in the page. It's been 3 weeks for this section and I still have a lot of ground to cover. CorporateM (Talk) 15:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

OK. I'll take a look over the next couple of days. Looks interesting. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:10, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:05, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 20[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Cancer pain/Comment[edit]

Please note that Wikipedia does not create special dedicated subpages in articlespace just to tell people to go to the talk page if they have comments — pages of the type you created at "Cancer pain/Comment" are not needed or wanted and do not exist for any other article. Rather, the existence of the talk tab at the top of the page is the only "notification" of the option to post comments there that we require or offer. Hope that helps a bit. Bearcat (talk) 17:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Can you point to a policy that supports your view, please? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Article readability tool[edit]

Hey Anthony,

I saw your post on Jimbo's page, and thought I'd let you know about an interesting readability tool I recently discovered from editor Collect. It says that only 16% of articles on Wikipedia are harder to read than Cancer pain, so you were right to draw attention to this. The tool uses the The Flesch reading ease algo, which gives good scores for the use of short words and short sentences. It makes it nice and easy to quantify improvements one secion at a time, by using the 'submit your own text' link.

E.g., this previous section of the lede was in the bottom 9% :

Cancer pain can be eliminated or well controlled in 80 to 90 percent of cases by the use of drugs (such as morphine) and other interventions, but nearly one in two patients in the developed world receives less-than-optimal care and, worldwide, nearly 80 percent of people with cancer receive little or no pain medication.

Whereas this replacement text is in the top 28%. :

Cancer pain can be eliminated or well controlled in 80 to 90 percent of cases by medical intervention. Drugs such as morphine can be effective. Nearly one in two patients in the developed world receives less than optimal care. Worldwide, nearly 80 percent of people with cancer receive little or no pain medication.

Granted, some ideas should not be over simplified, and long nuanced sentences may remain the best way to express them. But I think you might find the tool helps if you want your work to be more accessible to readers with average education. Thanks very much for taking the time to write such a good article on the important subject of Cancer pain! FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Wow. That's bloody awesome. I drew that article out of graduate-level textbooks and pretty much pitched myself at graduate readers. That was hard enough. But I'm starting to realise I've got probably the same amount of mental effort ahead, translating that into something the general reader will easily absorb. Thank you so much for pointing out that readability tool. I'm definitely going to play with that. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
It's interesting that the simpler version would (in my opinion) likely attract opposes at FAC for "short, choppy sentences" or the like. (Also the first two sentences being slightly repetitious in structure.) Having said that, the more complex version might also attract opposes on the grounds that by having all four facts in the same sentence, the sentence becomes somewhat wandering or convoluted. There's probably a version mid-way in between. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Obiwankenobi[edit]

User:Obiwankenobi was recently at ANI wearing more accusations of tendentious editing in gender-related topics. I think he (and possibly some buddies) needs to stay well away from those topics. I don't trust this largely male community to recognise the problem and deal with it adequately, and think it's something ArbCom will likely have to decide.

However, as a kindness to ArbCom, and to help with evidence-gathering and case-building, it may be useful to go through the WP:RFC/U process.

If an RFC/U were to go ahead, or if an ArbCom case were requested, I and/or User:Tarc could put up a good account of the Hillary Rodham Clinton and Sarah Jane Brown time-sinks, I think. User:Jayen466, are you well-enough across his work in categorising women to construct a coherent and complete account? User:SlimVirgin, would you be able to provide an account of his behaviour in the gender gap/bias issue? User:jps, you mentioned at ANI, "he is turning 'gender-based violence' into 'violence against men' as means to claim victimhood where there isn't any evidence that the gender itself is victimized. This is a rather ugly tactic that the MRM has been using as of late..." Would you put together something on that, if a case or RfC/U were initiated?

Obviously, you can all add whatever you want, I'm just trying to get a feel for your willingness to participate, and a sense of how well we're across some of the most prominent areas of contention. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Anthony, I've decided to take a wikibreak after a word from @Drmies: to consider my actions here, so I'd appreciate if you didn't start a case, I've already been under attack once recently at ANI and have undergone many accusations at the Category discussion for defending gender-based violence against men. I just don't have it in me anymore. I think I sometimes take it too personally when people attack me or my motives or call me a misogynist, I need to get thicker skin and brush it off, but my reaction is sometime to just edit more and push the envelope, and sometimes I push it too far. I"m sorry if my edits have offended people, and I'm walking away for a while to consider how to work better within this community. Thanks.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 10:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
It must be gruelling. Your resilience amazes me at times. And your respectful address. (I'm not convinced you're a misogynist, by the way, but I do, as you know, think you're very sexist.) It's by no means certain the above process would have resulted in any sanctions for you, and it may be instructive for you, and your critics, if you think you could endure it. But I won't be initiating any action now. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
thanks Anthony, I appreciate your consideration. I should say though that you have I believe called me or my edits misogynist on multiple occasions, moreso than anyone else here besides Tarc. I find that word extremely hurtful because I read the 'classic' definition of misogynist, eg one who hates women - as opposed to the much broader modern usage - I'm not going to share my family details but suffice to say believing I could hate women is incompatible with who I am and what I consider most precious in my life - and when I am called a misogynist because I defend 'violence against men' category or because of a dispute over the best article title for Hillary Clinton it is extremely hurtful to me even if I don't always show it. the result is I sometimes fight back by just editing further and harder, which obviously doesn't work that well. If you want to see a misogynist read Elliot Rodgers, or look at the things people wrote on Anita Sarskien's page (sp?) , misogyny is real and it's horrific, but when people throw it at me it hurts like hell because I'm put in the same box as those assholes. I wish I could find a way to edit toward what I see as the neutral path without triggering such words. Anyway, I don't think I was involved in anything around gender here until last year, and I may just ease up entirely, and go back to less contentious areas like Ireland/northern Ireland or perhaps dip my toe into the Middle East :). Any recommendations for other areas where I can categorize and actually avoid such drama?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Christianity and alternative medicine could use a hand. :) I apologise for having used that term. Until recently, I'd seen it as just an intensified sexism. An outgoing senator here, from the ruling party, described her leader as "a sexist, not a misogynist", and the ensuing controversy has taught me the very important difference. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
It was also catapulted to attention with Misogyny_Speech that actually resulted in changing the dictionary. IMHO, changing the definition of misogyny is not helpful to the feminist cause, because if it becomes the equivalent of sexism then it has lost much of it's power. Elliot Rodgers was not a sexist, and there are dark spots of the manosphere which are also not sexist, but misogynist. There's a difference. Even misandry is now being redefined, a series of books by Paul Nathanson I think extended misandry to systemic bias against men in certain areas, but I think that's the wrong use of the term, sexism or gender-based bias is better. But thanks for the apology. As an olive branch, it would be great when I came back for the two of us to work together on something, I'm not as bad as you think I am and I think I can make positive contributions here, and ultimately I know that you are always looking out for what you consider to be the best interests of the project. Best regards, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Macquarie Dictionary? I don't know if Tony Abbott is a misogynist, but Gillard was subjected to a lot of misogyny and he wasn't very outspoken against it. She had every right, IMO, to say, "I will not be lectured to about misogyny by this man," regardless of which of those meanings the word carries. I look forward to collaborating in the future on something we both enjoy. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


User:Obiwankenobi is back to editing and essentially seemed to use his wikibreak as a WP:GAME to prevent himself from getting new sanctions. He has generally behaved like an owner of MRA-related categories and materials. I will support you if you would like to proceed with a User-RfC. I can provide a lot of evidence showing his agenda is essentially incompatible with any sort of reasonable Wikipedia environment. Enough is enough. jps (talk) 22:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Actually I'm still on break. One or two edits doesn't change that. I reverted one change and explained why (eg scope is explicitly men and boys), you ignored my explanation and reverted instead of engaging on the talk page. One revert is hardly ownership. I'm not reverting further and have disengaged from a great many other discussions I was involved in. I still don't understand why you are so angry with me.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
    • If you really are still on break, why are you continuing to make harassing aggressive talkpage edits like this one? "Fwiw you are now edit warring by any definition." jps (talk) 12:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm just participating in a discussion - one discussion - and that wasn't a threat, that was a statement. He has made 5 reverts in the past 48 hours I think.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
You're clearly not on break. Just look at your contributions. I am not a fan of this cynical game Wikipedians play. When the heat is on, they pretend to go on break only to return a few days later to the same over-involvement that got them into trouble in the first place. jps (talk) 12:20, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
jps, I've just cleared my desk in order to prepare an article for scholarly peer review in three weeks. It's a topic that interests me but about which I know next to nothing so three weeks may not be enough time. Consequently, I won't be able to commit to anything here until a week after Wikimania. If you think it's appropriate to go ahead with the RfC before then, please do so but I won't be able to contribute until about 18 August. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:19, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)He's clearly not on break, he's currently edit warring at Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality. [4][5]--BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:11, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
It's not really possible to game the system if you return to the area that you have been disruptive within. People remember --80.193.191.143 (talk) 19:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Digital democracy project[edit]

Hello Anthonyhcole. I wanted to drop you a note, firstly to thank you for all of your input to the attempt to community source the submission to the Speaker's Commission on Digital Democracy. Even though the work hasn't been overwhelmed by large numbers of contributors I think it has led to something valuable. We are going to look at encouraging submission to the next theme - representation - and the final theme, when it is announced. Each theme will have a separate submission (to include the talk page) but at the time of the final one we'll be compiling some kind of report as an accompaniment. The second point is I definitely agree we need to encourage more people to participate directly on the call for the second theme (and those subsequent). I would love to get some suggestions from you on this. I have deliberately been quite reticent about promoting the project through Wikipedia channels as I don't want to do anything that could upset the community. Do you have any views on how we could get more people involved? Thank you for all of your help so far, it is appreciated. Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 15:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Ping[edit]

Re this, ping me when it's time. I'm not entirely gone; I just find this site intolerable, and not only because of the medical misinfo. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Face-smile.svg Will do. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
So, how do you want to approach this? -Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:17, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Your new userbox[edit]

Nice userbox there! When receiving some new decoration, as it might be template editor rights, one would always wish to tell the world "I've got template editing rights and you haven't, pffffft!" darwinbish BITE 20:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC).

It warms me in a very special way. This must be what power feels like. (Thank you to all of those - you know who you are - who emailed your support. It meant a lot.) I see you've got rollback. It's not quite Template Editor, is it? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

You just reverted the edit on Anya_Ayoung-Chee[edit]

Hi,

You just reverted the edit done by me on an article claiming I was in violation of titillation policy https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anya_Ayoung-Chee&oldid=615831530&diff=prev

I disagree, and am putting my edit back within a day, unless you respond on what exactly you found "titillating" about a verifiable piece of information, that was critical in shaping her career and life thereafter. No salacious language was used. Your reversion was however in clear violation of several of Wikipedia policies, as far as I understand. Request you to not to engage into an edit-war. Thanks.

In summary, the item happened several years ago, was well-sourced, and resulted in significantly impacting the subject's career. Wikipedia policy in question does mention about "evidence", which was indeed provided, or further can be provided. I notice that there is already a question to the effect, on the talk page which you did NOT address. I have added comments in the talk section however, as per your request in the edit. If you DO NOT respond however, I will assume your sole interest is to just do biased edits instead of reaching any agreement or even discussion it, and will undo your edit. Thanks Abhisri (talk) 16:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Abhisri. I've responded on the article's talk page. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Appreciate the response. We can have a discussion then. I am responding back on the page. Abhisri (talk) 17:01, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

A beer for you![edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png Thanks for your recent edits to Daniel R. Gernatt, Sr.. I appreciate your time and efforts! Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 22:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Invisalign[edit]

Hi Anthony. I wanted to see if you had the time/interest to review a draft History section here. No problem if you don't have time. CorporateM (Talk) 14:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry CM, I probably won't. I've got a lot on my plate wiki-wise just now. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Templates_written_by_banned_editor[edit]

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Templates_written_by_banned_editor is a problem, because they are being deleted. The policy with articles written by banned editors is to require editors who want them back to rewrite them before placing them in mainspace. This is hardly a possibility with many templates about places or streets.

I can cite particular examples affecting Philadelphia, but I am seeking advice on the general problem. Feel free to reply right here, or at the several places where this is already being mentioned.--DThomsen8 (talk) 14:33, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Latest stage of submission to the Speaker's Commission on Digital Democracy[edit]

Hello there. I thought I would drop you a note as you kindly took part in the first stage of the efforts to crowdsource a submission to the Speaker's Commission on Digital Democracy. The second stage is now live and can be seen here. It would be great if you could help with putting together the submission on the second theme, which relates to representation. Also, if you have any suggestions on how we can widen participation, that would be very helpful. Thanks again for all of your help. Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 11:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Article assessment screening[edit]

Pain scale turned up in the list of probably mis-assessed articles. I'm not sure how to re-rate it, though. Do you think that it's meant to be a list, or is the goal to write a prose-oriented article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

It can and should be a largely prose article. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC)