User talk:Anthonyhcole

Comments on Muhammad

Another point I wanted to make, I haven't personally noticed much incivility (beyond a little given it is a stressful process), but if someone has been repeatedly uncivil then I suggest gathering some diffs and emailing them to the committee, maybe they missed it.

Personally I think incivility is extremely serious, so I'd be happy to raise issues along those lines if I saw anything particularly bad. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words, Anthony

Too kind... as I was trying to say, these discussions attract exaggeration. But I found that whole thread one of the more interesting and encouraging. And I see you've been troubled by some misunderstandings yourself. Cheers! (literally), MistyMorn (talk) 21:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

:) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

office hours

Another notification, guys; Article Feedback Tool office hours on Friday at 19:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office :). If you can't attend, drop me a note and I'll send you the logs when we're done. We're also thinking of moving it to thursday at a later time: say, 22:00 UTC. Speak up if that'd appeal more :) Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh

How exactly did you revert me here? You didn't undo any of my unlinking; and what was "Didn't reduce overlinking" supposed to mean? — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 10:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jeraphine Gryphon. I think your edit summary is mistaken, Anthonyhcole. Pine^talk 10:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is. I thought I was looking at you adding links, Jeraphine Gryphon. Being half asleep at the time might have something to do with it. I scanned your history and was thinking, "this behaviour is so out of character for this editor." Please accept my apologies for the error. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DID lead change

Hi Anthony, note this change and the edit summary. I hadn't tweaked to your idea that the specifics of the dispute shouldn't be in the lead - and on reflection I agree with your assessment - but I do think the degree of acrimony is worth noting. Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's good. I responded here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My response is a resounding "meh" and a pointer to WP:SAY

The term "alter" is generally more accepted I believe (more so than "multiple personality" as I've seen criticisms that we aren't seeing "personalities" from both the pro- and con- camps, but then again the DSM-IV-TR kinda switches between them [1]) and I like the explicit use of the word "iatrogenic". But the "iatrogenic" model has been replaced with "sociocognitive" in some circles.

One thing I would greatly prefer would be to remove "some" as I made a big stink about it here. Were I my druthers and the the boss of wikipedia I'd revert to the old version, but see what you think after reading that section. Avoid the rest of the talk page, it'll make you cry. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I raise you a "meh" and a "wooaaah. holy fuck. Eeeergh. Oh god. No." That talk page. I just don't think I have the stamina for that. I'll look back again later. Oooeerrgh. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The central issue can be summarized as this:

Me: We should follow the P&G.

Everyone else: NOOOOO!!! NOOOOOOOOO!!!!! NNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

Me: What?

And you thought acupuncture was acrimonious... WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AHC, note this section; FF is the one editor who discloses an obvious potential COI in DID (a dissociative disorder is mentioned on his/her user page) and is both civil and appears to grok wikipedia. If you are going to revert on the main page, could I beg the favour that you engage, on the talk page, about this item at least? The rest is a complete gong show and I stridently urge you to stay away, but I think extra courtesy is due to FF for being such a standout on this page. Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if the timestamps prove it, but I wrote this before reading your above sage advice. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, in the past you've always been good about this sort of thing and I didn't expect this to be an exception. I just didn't want this one to fall through the cracks. Oh, did I also mention I'm a compulsive micro-manager? I'm a compulsive micro-manager.

That mushroom cloud gif is awesome but I think it's messing up my cursor. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not doing anything to mine. Should I remove it? It's pretty spectacular. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Naw, my cursor's just flickering more, and it's not doing it anymore. I say replace your user page with a 1000px version. For the lulz. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Totally worth it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weeee! --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the courtesy extended by both of you. Will keep it on the DID talk page now but did want to mention it personally on here. Forgotten Faces (talk) 16:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. It's great to have you here. I hope you like it and decide to stick around. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

maybe it's time to organize

Please have a look at this and let me know (there) what you think. --Ludwigs2 22:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images closed

An arbitration case regarding Muhammad images has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

The community is asked to hold a discussion that will establish a definitive consensus on what images will be included in the article Muhammad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and on where the images will be placed within the article. As with all decisions about content, the policies on verifiability and the neutral point of view must be the most important considerations. The editors who choose to participate in this discussion are asked to form an opinion with an open mind, and to explain their decision clearly. Any editor who disrupts this discussion may be banned from the affected pages by any uninvolved administrator, under the discretionary sanctions authorised in this decision. The decision reached in this discussion will be appended to this case within two months from the close of the case.
Ludwigs2 is prohibited from contributing to any discussion concerning Muhammad.
Ludwigs2 is banned from the English Wikipedia for one year.
Tarc is admonished to behave with appropriate professionalism in his contributions to discussions about disputed article content.
FormerIP is admonished to behave with appropriate professionalism in his contributions to discussions about disputed article content.
Hans Adler is reminded to engage in discussions about disputed article content with an appropriate degree of civility.
Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to Muhammad, broadly interpreted.
The participants in the dispute about depictions of Muhammad are reminded that editors who engage extensively in an intractable dispute can become frustrated, and that it is important to be aware that as editors we are limited in our ability to contribute constructively to a deadlocked disagreement. Our exasperation with a dispute can make us unprofessional or unreceptive to compromise. We therefore encourage the disputants of this case to consider if their participation in the coming community discussion of depictions of Muhammad would be useful, and we remind them that if they disrupt the community discussion they may be banned from the discussion or otherwise sanctioned under the discretionary sanctions provision of this case.

Mlpearc (powwow) 16:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the Arbitration Committee

Fae's RfC

Hey Anthony, you made the following edit [2]. As I read the edit summary and the associated link, I think you are withdrawing support for the view, but you left it count. Are you still supporting the call for a recall just with less harsh language or are you withdrawing support from the view? If the former, then no problem. If the later, you might want to indent your struck comment, thus taking you out of the count.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 17:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Thanks. I've clarified. [3] --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problems - glad I could help. Let me know if you need anything else. Giant Snowman 14:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI - 3rr

{{3RR|wp:ani}} - Youreallycan 16:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries - its not worth a block - such as that is the main problem with additional policing of comments - different people have different interpretations of what is worth removing . I also think that if increased policing of comment happens at WP:ANI that, the same standard should be applied to all talkpages. Youreallycan 16:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just said to Floquenbeam at Talk:AN "I understand there will be occasions where things may/may not cross the line of civility, and on those occasions it's probably best to let such comments go. But no one with an understanding of the term would mistake "that is the bullshit I was talking about", in reference to another's comment, for civil behaviour. Tarc was uncivil. The community needs to decide whether it wants that to be normal behaviour at ANI.

And I agree with your last comment. The place to start, though, is the admin noticeboards. Lead by example. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If a more friendly, and honest place can be encouraged - I support that one hundred percent, yes, leading by example is good advice for us all - best regards and good luck - Youreallycan 17:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think the place is ready. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anthony, I really appreciate what you're trying to do (and I support it) but I disagree with you that the place is ready yet. And I don't think "bullshit" was the right target to choose for the first outing of the new civility code in any case. IMO we need to wait until (a) we have better consensus on redacting incivility and then (b) wait for a really obvious and egregious case to kick off with. You can only lead by example if people are willing to follow and they're not, on this, yet. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 17:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's policy, Kim. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to clarify - I meant lead by example of not attacking anyone and being more appreciative of others, and not, leading by example by deleting others posts. Youreallycan 17:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Youreallycan, I realise redacting the comments was inappropriate and I won't be doing it again. :) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fae and WR again

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Fæ#For_the_record has started to draw WR links and a lot of discussion about them. I don't feel as responsible this time, and I think my comments are meant to disprove false allegations about Fae, but as my judgment on this issue has been deficient before... probably best if you had a look of your own to see what you feel is appropriate under policy. Wnt (talk) 18:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wnt, it's morning here and I'm moving house all day so won't be able to look for a few hours. I am so disappointed by the way this thing is going. Wikipedia has a lot more growing up to do. If I redact anything more from that page I'll be blocked but if when I get back on line there are links to that toxic WR thread, I'll be stripping those and any other such abuse out of the page. Catch you later. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've thought about this and realise I'm out of my depth there. I don't have the time for the reading necessary to fully grasp what's going on. I hope some mature admins are watching; and, however it plays out, we've got some serious lessons to learn from this experience. May I suggest you back off? Fae should be addressing the questions of his fitness to edit BLPs and his recall. Your constant engagement with his critics has, in my opinion, acted as a shield for Fae (when, without you there, he might have had to speak up) and has prolonged the ordeal which has led to the current ugly mess. I think it's time for everybody to stop speaking for him. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename at Campaign for "santorum" neologism

Hello, since you recently participated in an RfC at Campaign for "santorum" neologism, I thought you might be interested in this proposal for renaming the article, or perhaps another of the rename proposals on the page. Best, B^e——C_ritical 22:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of new editors

It's pretty clear to me that one of the most vociferous accusers of homophobia is not a new editor [4]. I don't know if he is a sockpuppet or a returning editor though. He tagged talk pages for wikiprojects withing his first few edits. I'm not familiar enough with the area to venture a guess who the account belongs to. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to this SPI request he's a clean-starter (Quigley = Shrigley) but I have no clue as to his prior identity. And don't care, so long as he's avoiding prior trouble topics. Should we ask a committee member to check the terms of his clean start agreement and make sure he's abiding by it? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If Youreallycan ends up at ArbCom, which based on the current WP:AN doesn't seem so unlikely, his perennial accusers should probably disclose prior accounts, at least to ArbCom. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cancer pain

Hello. I placed the Cancer pain good article review on hold because the article lacks sufficient images. This is my first Good Article review and I'm interested in your response. Thank you! ---Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 20:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Michael. Thank you for looking at this. This is my first GA nomination, so I won't really be able to bring any experience to the process. I'll have a look over the next few days to see if I can find images that add to the readers' understanding of the topic. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, I've just read through the article again and searched Google and Commons for images that might add to the readers' understanding but didn't find any. Sorry. Do GAs have to have a certain number of photos? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For criterion 6 "if possible", so there is not a number of images required. ~~Ebe 123~~ → report 21:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question: re-images

I was wondering if you could point me right direction. I recieved permission via phone to use images from a website. The copyright holder said he wouldn't have a problem sending permission; who do I have him send it to? I don't want to impose and ask him to just upload the images himself. This is the website here[5]. he also has other images he said he can send me that I can use. I appreciate any advice you can offer. Thanks 7mike5000 (talk) 00:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Get him to email our volunteers at: permissions-enwikimedia.org using this format. He can copy and paste it into his email.

I hereby affirm that I, (name here) am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of [describe the work to be released in detail, give the URL of the work]
I agree to publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (unported) and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).
I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.
I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.
I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me.
I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.
[SENDER'S NAME AND DETAILS (to allow future verification of authenticity)]
[SENDER'S AUTHORITY (Are you the copyright-holder, director, appointed representative of, etc.)]
[DATE]

and tell him to ask the OTRS volunteers to post a note on the The Battle for Whiteclay talk page or your talk page letting you know when they've received his email. Once that's done, you can upload the images quoting the OTRS "ticket" number.

I've only done this once, years ago, for this image, and I think composed the actual email for the copyright owner and just got him to paste the entire thing into an email to OTRS. But I'm definitely no expert. Wikipedia:Media copyright questions seems active, and can probably offer more reliable advice than me. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Anthony I appreciate it. BTW that image, is pretty interesting. It also explains alot to me as to why I'm effed up. I have a seahorse inside my brain. 7mike5000 (talk) 00:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shuddering

"I'm still shuddering at your grossly inappropriate response to my simple effort to explain where I'm coming from."

This is what happens when you perpetuate an edit war before getting any feedback on the talk page. Disruptive edits frequently lead to an editor getting looked up. Surely someone clearly of average intelligence should know this? aprock (talk) 06:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Average intelligence!!!??? (I'm very tempted to take you to ANI for that personal attack.) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At least you still have your sense of humor. :) aprock (talk) 06:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As, clearly, do you. :) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article Feedback Tool newsletter

Sorry for the radio silence, guys :). I just wanted to let you know that we're planning on starting a new round of hand coding, which you can sign up for here. This will be the final round (honest!), and is basically because we found some really interesting results from the last round that blew our collective mind. It's important to check that they weren't a fluke, though, and so a bit more work is needed.

If you have any questions, drop a note on my talkpage - and if you know anyone who would be interested in participating, please tell them about it! We'll be holding an IRC training session in #wikimedia-office at 18:00 UTC on the 21st of March to run through the tool and answer any questions you may have. Thanks! :) Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images

I think the Rfc is nearly finalized, but only a few editors have commented recently, not including you. Could you take a look & let us know what you think at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/11_February_2012/Muhammad-images#Finalizing_Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment.2FMuhammad_images. Thanks. Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's the IP for ya :)

http://193.62.66.20/~karl/The%20disconnection%20hypothesis.pdf That's one of the sources for the hypothesis I descibed. In addition to DA, a variety of monoamine NT are implicated in schizophrenia, but an abnormal dopamine cascade is how the disease advances. Another big influence on my thinking is The Master and His Emmisary, Ian McGhelchist, quite informative on the abnormal lateralization observed in schizophrenia, split-brain, and patients with other traumatic lesions, I highly reccomend it to everyone. Guywholikesca2+ (talk 01:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Physical Therapy Modifications

Hello. I would just like to mention that according to the MLA, all titles and subtitles should be capitalized (only prepositions and articles are not capitalized words in titles). --MaxDawsonC (talk) 00:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm wrong. I just checked from my MLA handbook and you are right. Titles are always capitalized, but subtitles are not; only the first word is. Sorry for disturbing you. --MaxDawsonC (talk) 01:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks for the work you're doing on that article. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doula question

What do you feel is wrong with the link I had, that you removed? You said it violates Wkipedia's external link policy.... i disagree. PLUS it is no different than other links that you did not remove. Thanks.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Docimastic (talk • contribs) 02:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I was thinking of point 5 at WP:ELNO (Links normally to be avoided) which includes "Links to individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services." The page being linked to seems to be primarily selling a course. I've asked for the opinion of more experienced editors at Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Second_.28or_more.29_opinion_sought.

As for the merits of the other links on that page, my cursory inspection of them led me to believe they're governing bodies or associations, rather than commercial entities. If, after reading WP:EL, you're of the view that some or all don't conform, you're at liberty to remove them. However others may reasonably disagree, and in that case take the discussion to the article talk page (Talk:Doula). --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:15, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. OK. I've looked more carefully at the other links and have removed the other ones that I believe go against WP:ELNO #5. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prostate cancer green tea

I'll draw only from the NCI report (which cites some of the same primary studies) but conclude with "the evidence regarding the potential benefits of tea consumption in relation to cancer is inconclusive at present."32cllou (talk) 03:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can see no merit whatever in adding mentions of primary studies that contributed to that report's conclusions. And cherry-picking encouraging primary studies will only serve to undermine that report's main conclusion.

I've copied this to the article's talk page. Let's continue this there, in case other editors want to contribute. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

False allegations

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

Muhammad

I know that but I can't see any edit buttons? Do I only get one edit button? Thepoodlechef (talk) 03:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see a few edit buttons, as well as the edit tab at the top, so I can't really help. Perhaps you could run it by Wikipedia:Village Pump (technical). --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiThanks

In recognition of all the work you’ve done lately! 66.87.0.36 (talk) 18:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]