User talk:Anthonyhcole

• User talk:Anthonyhcole/Archive1
• User talk:Anthonyhcole/Archive2

Hey

Anthony, this is a continuation of your archived thread with SlimVirgin. You are an editor who just seems to have a naturally good heart and your presence here is something of a delight. I suppose you can stay here and celebrate our particular style of stupidity, or go somewhere else and land into some other nonsense. Our predicament is inherently mad, and people are fundamentally a mess everywhere. The lights here are dim enough without you pulling out (or SlimVirgin for that matter). I hope you stay. Regards --Epipelagic (talk) 09:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Just having a break, Epi. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

A quiet word

It'd be a real shame to earn yourself a block. Please calm down. Reverting yourself would make you look good. --Dweller (talk) 16:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll wear the block. Whatever the community thinks is appropriate. It's bed time here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Malleus Fatuorum

Anthony, it is absolutely indisputable that after this week, you know better than to write things like this on the talk page of someone with whom you're in a heated dispute. As you well know, commenting on someone's edits is one thing. Commenting that a person "makes you sick" or spewing "fuck you"s at them is unacceptable. Please edit your comment to remove the personal attacks; no matter who you're arguing against or what their history, the things you've said aren't acceptable in a collegial environment. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

If you don't get 72 hours straight away it will be a disgrace. I have watched you edits over there this afternoon and knew this was coming. Anything to do with this [1]? Leaky Caldron 16:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

See section above. If Anthony's gone to bed now, I personally don't see the need for a block, unless it's punitive. If he resumes in the same vein tomorrow, I'll happily block him. Other admins may disagree. But I'm knocking off, too. --Dweller (talk) 16:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

He's been asked to remove it. He's refused. Apart from being in User talk it is very little different to the incident the other day. For the sake of consistency and in view of clear defiance a block is appropriate. He can appeal - when he wakes up. Leaky Caldron 16:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was leaning toward a block, myself, since he refused Dweller's suggestion that he redact the incivility; however, this is an edge case, since he's now offline and can't respond either way, and it appears that someone else has removed the personal attacks on Malleus's talk. Anthony, you're on the very last frayed edge here; when you wake up in the morning I suggest you put your mind to engaging with a renewed burst of constructiveness, because further incivility will not be tolerated. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk)

I've removed it. Anthony is welcome to take the matter up with me and is welcome on my talk page. While I typically don't approve of editing another person's comments, even when robust, I found this to be beyond acceptable. — Ched :  ?  16:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

ANI

A thread regarding your recent post to Malleus' talk page has been started here. I'll also state that I would greatly appreciate your not editing anything for 28 hours from the timestamp of your post to Malleus' page other than to respond to the issue at hand. You can respond here, at the ANI thread, on my talk page, and I'd imagine at Fluffernutter's talk. I have not enacted the "technical" part of "blocking", so I request this as a gentleman's agreement. Thank you. — Ched :  ?  17:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

It is with absolute pity that this user got blocked for incivility while the other user gets blocked for the same reason every 2 months & gets his block overturned in <15 mins. Some users claim that the other user got blocked so this user should also get blocked "for the sake of justice or lack thereof". Well one problem, like always other user got unblocked so there is no "evening the score for justice or lack thereof". Sorry to Anthony, but I could not resist. Shame on Samir, and Steve both. Do not remove this message from this talk, as this is Anthony page and whether it is removed he can still see it in his logs or email. Lastly, I will not be viewing any messages left here. Regards. Sabers220. (talk) 05:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

This is your very first edit here on Wikipedia; would you care to explain why that is? Malleus Fatuorum 07:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Block

Per the recent discussion at WP:ANI specifically regarding this diff: [2], I have placed a 72 hour block on your account for reasons of breaches of WP:CIV. You are welcome to appeal this block should you disagree through use of the unblock template -- Samir 17:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment

My comments on Malleus' talk page were well beyond civil, even for a user talk page. They were a personal attack, on Malleus, Jimbo, and you, probably (at least, most of the human race), and warranted serious sanction.

For the record, it was a simple spontaneous eruption of contempt mingled with rage. Some have muttered that I went to his page to harass him; that's not the case. I went to continue a discussion that had been interrupted by earlier admin action. Some are muttering that I went there to "bait" or "poke" him into a block. I appreciate the complement but my Machiavellian intelligence is non-existant. Obviously.

I lost respect for Malleus when he said, "You already succeeded in getting me blocked, so I can only presume that you're trying to repeat the trick." I had made it clear that I had no intention of getting him blocked, he knew it, and yet regurgitated this populist slur. That's where he opened the door for my unmitigated opinion.

But my rant wasn't aimed at the dishonesty I perceived in that comment, that simply gave me permission to express a much deeper revulsion that's been building in me over the last few months with respect to this project.

It's a feeling, so I'm not sure I can make it clear. A kind of nauseous disgust. It's to do with how we deal with the hurt we may cause others, other editors, our subjects and our readers. I'm pleased to see the faltering steps being taken toward a more civil ethos here. Those who actually know me know that means a great deal to me. There is a long way to go. Pesky pointed out that finding the right form of words for what's required is difficult. I agree. That's the challenge. The right form of words will emerge if we discuss these questions enough.

With regard to respectful discourse between editors, Malleus has been addressing the real root of the civility problem here for years. Telling someone to fuck off, or calling them a cunt is obviously uncivil and an easy call for an admin. But the real evil here is not Malleus and me calling each other names, it's the sleazy aside from one editor to another, undermining the reputation of a third. One editor can bully or badger another for days or weeks without ever calling them a name, and it's their victim that cops a block when they respond accordingly. So I'm glad to see more admins taking civility seriously, but you're going to have to work on the sophistication of your approach.

I'm disgusted by the way this project treats its readers with regard to controversial images. The bit that disgusts me is the mantra that "we don't care if we offend our readers." Seriously. That has been repeated ad nauseam during the Muhammad images debates and others. I can see no excuse for that attitude, and don't want to participate in an enterprise that has that attitude towards its readership.

And finally, contempt for our subjects. I first noticed this on a BLP. A teenage girl and her boyfriend made a sex tape. Later, when she was a minor local celebrity, the tape was posted on the net, without her permission. It's there now; Google her name and "sex tape" and you got it. She's now won a TV competition, so is becoming better known.

The tape's existence has been mentioned a few times in the press, but not much, and usually the "nudge, nudge, lucky bastard" type of comment, but it doesn't seem to have affected her career or even her private life. An RfC asked "Should we mention the tape?" Policy-wise you can make a case for its inclusion, but it's borderline. What really disgusted me was the utter unconcern of many editors for the effect our inclusion of the factoid would have on the visibility of the tape, and the consequent effect this would have on the woman. I won't elaborate further; you either get it or you don't.

And it was concern for the subject of a BLP that brought Malleus and me together. He was arguing for the preservation of a borderline notable BLP that the subject said was distressing him. I argued that it should go, simply because it's borderline notable and the subject doesn't want it.

Although Malleus asserted the wishes of the subject are irrelevant, an assertion he is incapable of justifying, and a position I find morally repugnant, he deemed it appropriate to also declare the subject's claim of distress is implausible. Unfortunately, Jimbo had already primed me with a similar judgment. Jimbo had ignored my response, so I thought I'd add a little emphasis when I explained my view to Malleus.

I've suffered chronic pain and fatigue since I had an unnecessary medical intervention at the age of 18 months. I spent a lifetime trying to explain how I feel to others, and being met with a solid wall of skepticism. I've made it my business to understand the science of pain, and more broadly the science of suffering.

I, and pain science in general, know that nobody, nobody, nobody, nobody, nobody (got it?) knows how much a person is suffering from a given stimulus. We know that a stimulus that barely troubles one person can crush another. We know that some are masters at hiding their pain while others are shameless and highly convincing exaggerators. That is, people informed by the science of pain are very aware of their inability to estimate another's pain. The more expertise you have in this field, the humbler you become about estimating others' pain. The less you know, the more confident.

So, I am enraged by Malleus' and Jimbo's temerity in summarily declaring it implausible that the existence of a "benign" BLP might cause significant distress to its subject. Those obviously shallow judgments clearly informed their thinking on the AfD. But that "thinking" is the norm here. So I'll leave this place to Jimbo, Malleus and the rest.

One last thought. Like many internet communities, this is a magnet for social outcasts of one colour or another. The bedridden, the housebound, the lonely, the frightened, the hated. This is a good thing. Most outcasts I know are good people, and this provides a place where they can do a lot of unalloyed good in the company of others. But the project needs to face the corollary that there will be an effect on the ethos here. When a bunch of rejects gets together and tries to form a society ad hoc, they'll make mistakes that stem from poorly honed social sensitivity. It is highly likely that our social norms regarding each other, our subjects and the world at large (our readership) will be a poor fit for people of normal social sensibility. This matters. It is only just beginning to be addressed, starting with heightened attention to civility, but there's a long way to go, and the more these questions are discussed, the sooner we'll evolve into something that can seamlessly and responsibly engage with the world community. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready!

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

• Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
  • Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
  • If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

What's an Aguaxima?

Is it a type of dish soap? Equazcion ^(talk) 19:44, 14 Apr 2012 (UTC)

No, a personal grooming product. I see User:Chzz/drafts/Aguaxima. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

RfC

It's just not up to you -- not your role to delete someone else's comments. If the closers think those comments should be ignored because they were added too late, they'll ignore them. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this matters much so feel free to revert me if you haven't already. It struck me that the RfC doesn't look closed because it's not in a box, and the !voter probably wouldn't have posted his comments if he'd noticed it was closed and, probably wouldn't mind me pointing it out and reverting. I decided to revert when I saw it on my watch list, before I saw which way he was voting. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:41, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

No worries -- Griswaldo has popped in to help you out, lovely fellow that he is. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

As I explained to Nomoskedasticity it is absolutely up to us. It is a community process. Relying on some institutional authority only to do this kind of thing is ridiculous. It's also hypocritical for Person A to say that its not up to Person B to enforce the rules of a community process but it is up to Person A to enforce some other rule (by deleting the original rule enforcement). Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 11:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)