User talk:Colin

SEMI-RETIRED

This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.

User:Colin on Commons

Archives
6 December 2005 – 14 July 2006 4 August 2006 – 18 March 2007 19 March 2007 – 8 November 2007 11 November 2007 – 26 June 2008 1 July 2008 – 28 September 2008 1 October 2008 – 24 November 2009 16 December 2009 – 4 July 2010 30 August 2010 – 30 September 2012 22 October 2012– 25 April 2013 30 April 2014– 1 October 2014 19 November 2014– 3 April 2018

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mount Stuart House

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, File:Mount Stuart House 2018-08-25.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Armbrust The Homunculus 01:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Colin. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Colin. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Write for Signpost on medicine?

You criticized Jytdog's assessments at WT:MED recently. I appreciate the feedback but that talk page is not the correct forum for a conversation about a particular editor. As I was reading what you read I wished that you could have reframed your discussion as a criticism of Wiki medicine process, but seemingly your view is that the process was just an opinion of Jytdog.

If you feel strongly then I could get a response for you if you drafted an opinion piece for The Signpost or some other appropriate forum. Maybe you could mention Jytdog, or maybe you just have opinions about the oversight of Wikipedia's medical content. I feel that Jytdog only executed consensus and do not see his actions in the example you gave as personal.

Many times I have offered to chat with you by voice or video on various issues. That still applies, and I offer again because if we did a point/counterpoint article I would not want anyone to be surprised by the response.

What you stated was what I feel many people believe. WP:MED has a counterpoint, of course. It could be that WP:MED is in error, but I feel like part of your argument that WP:MED had not thought through the issues you raised. There is an established discourse, and if you can organize any number of editors to present one side, I can organize a response on the other.

If we did this some goals I would have would be keeping this entry level for new users, not committing so much labor to the article, and linking out to anywhere appropriate where people could contribute to the discussion. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:34, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't really follow your comment "You criticized Jytdog's assessments at WT:MED recently". I wasn't talking about "assessments" and my section was entitled "scapegoating", not "Jytdog". Scapegoatingisn't quite the accurate word since he's taking a fall that is fully deserved, but my point is that his bullying behaviour is endemic at WP:MED and WP:MED does nothing to identify, prevent and deal with bullying. It is trivial to find other examples for other editors. I pulled out that one example, because it was brought up at the Arb and nobody, not one person at WP:MED, said OMG that's just unacceptable. I saw some horrendous behaviour from a different WP:MED editor just earlier this month, to a newbie who was very much editing in good faith and struggling simply with the protocol and etiquette. I have seen this bullying going on several times this year, and the bullying of an expert at Epilepsy by a whole gang at WP:MED, led by James, is the reason I semi-retired from WP.

If serious comments about serious issues are going to be treated with the kind of childish abuse that WP:MED seem to think passes for discussion, and responses so full of careless misunderstandings, then I frankly have better things to do with my time. Jytog's block could have been a moment when WP:MED reflected on its pattern of editing and attitudes towards other editors, and embarked on reform. I'm sure you are well aware of public events in the last year or two in the entertainment business, where an individual's horrendous behaviour has sparked reflection in an industry that exposes the problem is not unique to that person, and that the industry was not only in denial of the problem, but actively colluded in attacking anyone who raised a complaint. WP:MED is in that place and at some point the boil will burst. There is no counterpoint argument for bullying, just as there was never ever any excuse for the abuse that went on in the entertainment business. -- Colin°^Talk 17:46, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your response and consideration. I do not see a productive way forward in this direction and have no ideas of what more to suggest. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:08, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Wemyss Bay railway station

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, File:Wemyss Bay railway station concourse 2018-08-25 2.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Armbrust The Homunculus 14:41, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Attribution

It may be the case that attribution is simply invisible to many people, including Wikipedia editors, when they are reading the news. I've seen myself how journalists (or their editors) can choose to highlight attribution, downplay it, or even obscure it, by placing the attribution at the beginning or end of a statement. Journalists may also choose to repeat or not repeat this attribution for subsequent statements from a single source.

I'll admit, I'm sensitive to attribution because I was taught to read the news while paying careful attention to it, and because in scientific writing it is common to have almost every sentence ends with an inline citation.

For this reason, I'm amazed when other editors see an attributed statement in a newspaper, and are incredulous when informed that the statement may not be a certain fact. -Darouet (talk) 14:50, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Darouet, see British journalists have become part of Johnson’s fake news machine. See also Churnalism. Journalists are often just mouthpieces for getting "facts" from the fiction-machine into people's heads. There's very little questioning investigative journalism, because that costs so much money and takes so much time. I'm not saying that using attribution is wrong or a waste of time, but it is probably not as effective as we'd hope. -- Colin°^Talk 15:08, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@Colin: the OpenDemocracy piece is extraordinary but unfortunately not surprising. I just re-read Orwell's Homage to Catalonia. In it, he describes watching a CP agent denouncing various left-wing dissidents:

"It was the first time that I had seen a person whose profession was telling lies — unless one counts journalists."

Investigative journalism is precious indeed but too rare these days. I sometimes have the impression that the "churnalists" almost resent investigative journalists for reminding readers how journalism is really done. -Darouet (talk) 15:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Pricing

Hi Colin. Thank you for taking on the difficult subject of pricing. Have you seen Wikipedia:Prices, which has a fairly good list of relevant discussions at the end.

As you point out, the big problem is that "price" depends on many factors, and can vary considerably. Because of this, price is generally not something that can be simply identified and incorporated as wikidata. I've been hoping some simple pricing information can be agreed upon. But as long as editors are behaving as they are, I don't think we can make much progress.

I'm awaiting closure of Talk:IPhone_11#RfC_about_including_pricing_information_in_article. I don't think it will help with the inevitable ArbCom, but it should get editors to tone down their behavior at least a little. --Ronz (talk) 21:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Ronz, I have see Wikipedia:Prices and is a good example of where an essay can get distorted by a POV pusher with no interest in the truth. I have rarely seen such blatant BS outside of a Trump tweet or a Tory party Facebook advert. I'm a bit out-of-touch wrt Wikipedia dispute resolution but I suspect this isn't quite arbcom level. WP:MED used to have editors who cared about source->article faithfulness and writing encyclopaedic content. I'm not seeing any evidence of that these days and there are plenty better websites for medical information today. -- Colin°^Talk 22:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

MEDMOS price

Hello Collin, just to reply quickly to [1], yes I agree it's complex, your comments a month ago made me search for the literature on the subject. I'll reply on MEDMOS with my findings and thoughts. Best regards. --Signimu (talk) 13:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited International Medical Products Price Guide, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Depression (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 08:05, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!

		Faithful friends who are dear to us
		... gather near to us once more. May your heart be light and your troubles out of sight, now and in the New Year. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:37, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks Sandy and best wishes to you also. -- Colin°^Talk 19:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Manual of Style Discretionary Sanctions

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 Barkeep49 (talk) 20:20, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Interaction with RexxS at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/RFC on lead guideline for medicine-related articles

Colin, I've spent a few hours working on the pricing RfC and only now have swung around to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/RFC on lead guideline for medicine-related articles. I would ask you to strike the portions of this diff which comment on RexxS as an editor rather than the substance being discussed. If you have questions about this please don't hesitate to ask me either by pinging me here or asking on my talk page. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:50, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Barkeep49, done. -- Colin°^Talk 22:04, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Colin, thanks. That is indeed helpful. But I have one further request that per WP:REDACT you undo your deletion of the comment and instead use <s> </s> tags on that content. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "An update on and a request for involvement at the Medicine MOS". Thank you.Barkeep49 (talk) 03:35, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Valentine's Day thanks

	Heartfelt thanks
	... for your many years of considerable help to make Tourette syndrome the best it can be. Happy Valentine's Day to you and yours! Sandy (Talk) 19:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Oooh. Thanks Sandy. -- Colin°^Talk 19:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom notification

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Medical pricing and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:33, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Asking a favor of your time

Colin, I am here to ask a favor, in the hopes that you (like me) have more free time because of stay-at-home COVID restrictions and are willing to increase your workload at this time.

Your superior writing ability and content reviews first came to my attention when I met you at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tourette syndrome-- which remains to this day the FAC with most support received ever (19 unanimous supports), and the fastest support as well (with most of those supports lodged within 24 hours only).

I neglected the TS article for more than five years after the content was negatively impacted (IMO) by attempts originating at the Medicine project to enforce misinterpretations of guidelines, and even personal preferences, as if they were policy, with edits that are contradictory to the standards Featured articles must meet. When I finally decided to update and completely overhaul the 14-year-old Tourette syndrome (TS), it was the comprehensive review you gave here and here that assured smooth sailing with no problems found during TS's 3 March mainpage appearance. Many other editors-- medical and non-medical-- also pitched in to help smooth prose, but it was your thoroughness that assured that there was clarity and accuracy in the prose. Along with the work a lot of the same team did to quickly update Graham Beards' Introduction to viruses for a coronavirus-related TFA, sorting this table by mainpage views reveals that our Featured medical content ranked right up there with the (significant) 75th anniversary of the Bombing of Tokyo, so your work is not only appreciated by me, but shown to our readers as quality TFAs.

With that background, I would like to ask you to give more of your time and writing ability towards other featured article efforts. I can give you multiple ideas of where I could really use help, as it is abundantly clear that I am unlikely to get help from the Medicine project.

I wrote dementia with Lewy bodies two years ago, and recently did a complete overhaul of the citations to make sure it uses the latest secondary reviews. Since that update, I have made no attempt (have not yet had time) to smooth the prose, check the flow, make sure everything is in the right place and has clarity, etc. I also haven't updated the lead at all, as I always insist it is best to work on the lead last. This article is almost FAC ready. I am in no hurry because FAC these days is as moribund as FAR, but DLB is a potential Featured article.

But there are other, more urgent FA repair needs, to avoid or help with Featured article reviews. Perhaps one of these will interest you? Almost none of the Medicine Project Featured articles are being maintained; as you will see from this list, I despair. I can't do this alone. MANY non-medical editors are helping me, but you have the medical content writing expertise at the FA level that some of them don't have.

• Asperger syndrome is languishing at FAR, as it has fallen into complete disrepair since Eubulides left. The FAR Coordinators have not enough feedback to either Keep or Delist the article, and one would hope it could be updated and repaired to honor our departed friend Eubulides. The choice here is attempt repair, or to ask for Delist at FAR-- but the Coords need something one way or the other.
• Autism is actually in even worse shape. I was just reviewing it, and hardly know where to start. This is another Eublides FA, that has been the subject of very poor editing since his departure. I can't keep up with all of these alone.
• Chagas disease is also currently at FAR, but there is an impressive cadre of editors at work there; it is premature for your review yet, but eventual review with an eye towards saving the bronze star will be needed.
• Dengue fever has unaddressed maintenance tags and no one is doing a thing; I haven't yet submitted it to FAR. That is a JFdwolff/DocJames joint FAC. I am surprised neither of them has maintained it, but think it best to focus my/our efforts elsewhere, as they should be able to do the work, if they are willing.
• Huntington's disease is a wreck, but when someone submitted it to FAR, I asked that it be put on hold because it isn't just to have three medical articles at FAR at once.
• Parkinson's disease is another wreck that needs to go to FAR, which I FAR-noticed in February, yet no one is doing a thing. Ditto for DNA repair and Cell nucleus (FAR-noticed by others).

That is only the tip of the iceberg; there is more. But if you are willing to lend a hand on any of these articles, there is plenty to choose from. Please help me? We have-- at the top levels of our medical content-- dismal failures, and I shudder to think of what is at the GA level. On the other hand, we also have a potential FA at DLB. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 2 April 2020 (UTC)