User talk:Anthonyhcole: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:36, 5 May 2014

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

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:

Have you by any chance read the book?
Could you give me some concrete advice on how to write the article?
Why did you not include the reviews in the article itself under "external links"? (Perhaps I should remove the ones I added?)
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"?
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Operculum

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Electronic cigarettes

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!--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 19:10, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Great, thanks. I'll add some links.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 19:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

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)[reply]

OER inquiry

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)[reply]

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

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that 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)[reply]

Thanks for your advice. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of RfC 2 and request for participation

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.

RfC: Replace existing Nazi gun control paragraphs?

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

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)[reply]

Done. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation join the new Physiology Wikiproject!

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):
- {{subst:WP Physiology–invite}} ~~~~
To welcome editors of physiology articles, copy and past this template (with the signature):
- {{subst:WP Physiology–welcome}} ~~~~
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! Diptanshu^Talk 12:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

please help translate this message into the local language

	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

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)[reply]

@@ Line 133: / Line 133: @@
 </div>
 <!-- Message sent by User:Ocaasi@metawiki using the list at http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_message_delivery/Targets/Med250_2013&oldid=7964995 -->
+== [[Talk:Sarah Brown]] ==
+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—
+* [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration]];
+* [[Wikipedia:Arbitration guide]].
+Thanks,<!-- Template:Arbcom notice --> [[Special:Contributions/131.111.185.66|131.111.185.66]] ([[User talk:131.111.185.66|talk]]) 03:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC)