User talk:Anthonyhcole/Archive6

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:

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

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

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)

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.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 19:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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!

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):
  • {{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)

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)

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—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

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

A quick request

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

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

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

Case request declined

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

		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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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!

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

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

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

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

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)

Acupuncture

There is discussion on the talk page of the above article about application of MEDRS. I figure you probably know more about that than I do. John Carter (talk) 00:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Aaarrggggh. Sorry, John. I'm over-extended on-wiki at the moment. Maybe drop a cry for help at WT:MED or WP:RSN? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Reply to nonexistent message :-)

Hi Anthony -- our philosophical zombie article might also be worth looking at. Looie496 (talk) 13:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Will do. :o) Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Knowledge graph

Hi. It's probably from Freebase: /m/03f5vvx /m/0_rfc8r. πr² (t • c) 23:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Each individual award seems to have its own ID, e.g. [6], [7]. You can view the history of each: e.g. [8]. πr² (t • c) 23:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Mmm. Adam Ant: bastard of the year 1981. [9]. Crimes against good taste, I guess. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Teun Koolhaas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Batavia. 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) 08:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Anthonyhcole. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 22:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Tutelary (talk) 22:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Medical Translation Newsletter Aug./Sept. 2014

Medical Translation Newsletter
Issue 2, Aug./Sept. 2014
by CFCF

sign up for monthly delivery

Feature – Ebola articles

Electron micrograph of an Ebola virus virion

During August we have translated Disease and it is now live in more than 60 different languages! To help us focus on African languages Rubric has donated a large number of articles in languages we haven't previously reached–so a shout out them, and Ian Henderson from Rubric who's joined us here at Wikipedia. We're very happy for our continued collaboration with both Rubric and Translators without Borders!

Just some of our over 60 translations:

• Xhosa
• Northern Sotho
• Zulu
• Tsonga
• Venda
• Hausa
• Igbo
• Yoruba
• Kinyarwanda
• Swahili
• Tigrinya

New roles and guides!

At Wikimania there were so many enthusiastic people jumping at the chance to help out the Medical Translation Project, but unfortunately not all of them knew how to get started. That is why we've been spending considerable time writing and improving guides! They are finally live, and you can find them at our home-page!

New sign up page!

We're proud to announce a new sign up page at WP:MTSIGNUP! The old page was getting cluttered and didn't allow you to speficy a role. The new page should be easier to sign up to, and easier to navigate so that we can reach you when you're needed!

Style guides for translations

Translations are of both full articles and shorter articles continues. The process where short articles are chosen for translation hasn't been fully transparent. In the coming months we hope to have a first guide, so that anyone who writes medical or health articles knows how to get their articles to a standard where they can be translated! That's why we're currently working on medical good lede criteria! The idea is to have a similar peer review process to good article nominations, but only for ledes.

Some more stats

• In July, 18 full article translations went live (WP:RTT), and an additional 6 simplified versions went live (WP:RTTS)!
• We have a number of new lead integrators into Dutch, Polish, Arabic and Bulgarian, with more to come in smaller languages! (Find them here old sign up page)
• We were mentioned in a Global Voices Online report by Subhashish Panigrahi at Doctors and translators are working together to bridge Wikipedia's medical language gap
• New medical professionals have started, dedicated to working in Odiya and Kinyarwanda!

Further reading

• Translators Without Borders
• Healthcare information for all by 2015, a global campaign

-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 13:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Meetup

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Deltahedron (talk) 11:33, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

CoolSculpting

Hey Anthony. I wanted to drop you a line that I'm working on another medical article that may be of interest (see here or my work-in-progress here). If you have any interest in checking it out and commenting on the discussion, your time would be appreciated. CorporateM (Talk) 01:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom case

Hey Anthony, I can't see what the evidence is of Eric's disruption at GGTF. Is there any evidence of his disruption at GGTF? What are these six arbs looking at? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender Gap Task Force/Proposed decision#Eric Corbett:

(C) Eric Corbett has discussed matters on the Gender Gap Task Force in a non-constructive manner.[10][11][12][13]

2, 3 and 4 are insulting. Given his "yes", though, that seems to have been resolved. I'm hoping Seraphimblade and Roger will reconsider, in light of the "yes". I don't know where NativeForeigner stands. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks Anthony. Wow. 3 supposed insults and a ban is in the works. The case was, ostensibly, about the GGTF. Shouldn't a topic ban from that project be an appropriate penalty? I can't help but think that at some point criticism of the project was turned into support for sexism and misogyny. Well, I may work on an article or two, or not. Thanks again. Drmies (talk) 02:35, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Marathon Man

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mark_Marathon#March_2014

You defended him last time. But he's at it again, and I have had enough of him. Do you want to explain to one or the other of us, who is nuts?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vachellia_nilotica#Tooth_brushing

SBHarris 08:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

SB, I'm reading and working on an edit. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Done. [14] --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipediocracy blog

Just curious. Have you and/or SandyGeorgia and maybe anyone else ever considered trying to get together a piece on the medical board for the wikipediocracy blog? John Carter (talk) 15:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Heh. I wonder if the more deranged Wikipediocracy people would have to abandon their assertions that User:SandyGeorgia is the heart of a huge abusive IRC ring of nasty administrators and others, before that would happen. (Just from my observations, SG despises IRC either as a medium of communication or as regards its role in Wikipedia decision-making, or more likely both. I'm sure she'll correct me if I'm wrong.)

There are lots of more influential places where SG (and other well-meaning individuals, present company included) could write things if they wished to do so. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

My answer is yes, yes and yes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The reason for mentioning it is Anthony has been, in some comments which seem to have been deleted, proposed for being blocked from the site by someone who themselves seem to have been blocked since then. I was just thinking that Anthony, who has many more edits there than I, might use it to counter the claims made on the apparently now-deleted comments. John Carter (talk) 23:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I like the idea of a blog post critiquing Wikipedia's medical content. Per Demiurge, there may be a more effective place to publish it, depending on our tone, what we have to say, and who our audience is, of course. Are you saying "yes" to a blog post, Sandy, or to Demiurge? If the former, do you want to email me? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:12, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I was joking all 'round. If I have to face our medical content issues again, I will just lose my Thanksgiving dinner (even after two days). It was bad enough before the Education Program made medical content a playground for plagiarizing youngsters, working for their profs ... errrrr ... a grade ... before they disappear, leaving us with a huge cleanup. The WMF has plenty of go-to ability to get out a press release when they want to sing the praises of gender gapper Awadewit, but none when they should address the legacy of damage that she/that program left us. Where, WMF, is the press release telling profs to have their kiddos lay off of adding content that matters to a website that reaches gazillions? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

OK. Mmm. I'll think about this. Sandy, I'll email you if I go ahead - once Thanksgiving has settled, maybe you could consider adding something about the education program's effect on WPMED. (Any interest in any of this, Colin?) Thanks for the suggestion, John. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Why not put it on the signpost for starters? Or contact Slate or...who knows....? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Or the WMF blog? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. The WMF blog, as well as not being full of rabid cranks who associate SG with IRC (that's one very amusing craziness, for sure), also has the advantage of not being in a state of self-implosion like the WO site, which right now is busily trying to hide from public view the criticism of the squalid behaviour of some of its more profit-focused "trustees" by those who supposedly voted to elect them.

Wrong lizard! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Betje Koolhaas

The article Betje Koolhaas has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Christian75 (talk) 09:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia study- Thank you

Hello Anthonycole, I hope you remember speaking to me in the summer of 2012 about your motivations for contributing to the health-related pages on Wikipedia. The great news is that the study got published this Wednesday in JMIR (Journal of Medical Internet Research). You can read it here: http://www.jmir.org/2014/12/e260 This would not have been possible without your contributions so once again, I would like to thank you for taking the time and sharing your experiences with me. I also wrote an entry about my own experience with the study, about additional observations and how I plan to further extend my research - published in the WMF blog today: https://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2014/12/who-writes-wikipedias-health-and-medical-pages-and-why/ If you have any comments or questions please get in touch.Perhaps see you at the next Wikimania conference in Mexico! Best Wishes Hydra Rain (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Yay! I read it last night. Thank you so much for this valuable piece of work. 31/32 male? Amazing. 3 school kids. "Half working in healthcare" supports the result Jake and James found in their short survey - if my memory serves me well. Well done. I look forward to your next. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library Accounts Now Available (December 2014)

Hello Wikimedians!

The TWL OWL says sign up today :)

The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for, free, full-access accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for:

• Elsevier - science and medicine journals and books
• Royal Society of Chemistry - chemistry journals
• Pelican Books - ebook monographs
• Public Catalogue Foundation- art books

Other partnerships with accounts available are listed on our partners page. Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team.00:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).

This message was delivered via the Mass Message tool to the Book & Bytes recipient list.

Arbitration notice

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Wifione 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 guide;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Arbitration proceedings.

Thanks, Jehochman ^Talk 04:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Re: Happy new year

Hi Anthony,

Thanks, and happy new year also! I trust you're well too.

This isn't an area I know that much about, I'm afraid, but it sounds like you want something like Sonata plus+, an Internet radio for the blind made in the UK with only a few buttons, but perhaps adapted for Australian conditions. Closer to home, I've just found out about a product called RealSAM, a voice-activated newspaper/newsfeed/podcast reader designed for the blind. There are two libraries for the blind which might or might not be useful: VisAbility's library (based in Perth) and the Vision Australia library (based in Melbourne). I hardly read anything offline so I don't know much about their services, but I know the latter library offers magazine/newspaper subscriptions. Graham87 09:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a million, Graham. I'll take a look. Have an awesome 2015. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/player/bbc_world_service
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/listen/live/r2.asx
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/listen/live/r4.asx
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/listen/live/r4x.asx
http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/live/national.asx
http://www.cbc.ca/liveradio/popup/index.html?networkKey=cbc_radio_one&programKey=ottawa
http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=3&t=live1&islist=false
http://www.voanews.com/audio/channel/0.html

Note to self

myxofibrosarcoma

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione/Evidence. Please submit your evidence before 16 January 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

Please read this notice before submitting any material (evidence or workshop proposals or comments) on the case or talk pages.

From the statements so far, this case is either about an administrator editing in defiance of the neutral point of view policy or a group of editors unjustly making accusations of such. The committee takes no view at present.

However, all participants are reminded that breaches of the Outing and harassment policy and the Personal attacks policy are prohibited. Further, be aware that the outing policy takes precedence over the Conflict of interest guideline.

No material that touches upon individual privacy may be posted publicly but must instead be sent using "Email user" to the Arbitration Committee. Such material will be accepted, or disregarded, at the committee's sole discretion.

Before communicating by email with the Committee, please read our "Communications and privacy" statement.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Callanecc, but I've decided not to participate. I'm just not motivated enough. Sorry. Please consider inviting User:Peter Damian to participate. He's across the evidence far better than I am, and I'm sure he'd be happy to help. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Anthonyhcole, just letting you know in case you decide to participate that the drafting arbitrators have decided to increase the word and diff limit for parties to a maximum of 2000 words and 200 diffs. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Callanecc. Peter has said he'll make a case off-wiki. I'll read it through carefully and, if I'm satisfied it's fair, I'll take "ownership" and past or paraphrase it into a case page. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Gender gap mailing list

Hi Anthony, I just noticed from the GGTF archives that you were having difficulty signing up to the GG mailing list. Did that get sorted out for you? Happy New Year, by the way! SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

No. If you could put in a word for me with the moderators, I'd appreciate it. Happy New Year to you! --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Anthony, so far as I know you just sign up and should start receiving emails. The sign-up page is here – you add your email address and click "subscribe". Can you try that again and see whether it works? If it doesn't, we can email the mods. It would definitely be lovely to have you around (there and on WT:GGTF if you ever have time). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Done. :o) I did it once before and didn't get the emails. I'm rethinking my involvement here (again ... still) but would like to at least keep an eye on the gender issue, even if I'm not very engaged. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

You should start to see emails fairly soon, but if you don't let me know. I'm also semi-involved at the moment. The GGTF case left a bad taste that I don't think will leave me. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Pending Changes

There is a key difference between the pending changes implementations on the Russian and German Wikipedias: in the Russian Wikipedia, changes are shown to all readers immediately. Approving them only means they become part of an "approved" article version. In the German Wikipedia, the default is that readers do not see the changes at all until they are approved: the changes are only visible to logged-in readers viewing the draft version of the article. This explains why approving changes takes so much longer in the Russian Wikipedia; since it doesn't change the default appearance of the article, it's seen as a lesser priority by editors. Andreas JN466 09:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Risker is mistaken about the average time it takes to approve a change in the German Wikipedia: the average waiting time is 14 h 51 min, with a median of 1 h 32 min. The 8 d 9 h refers to pages with unreviewed changes only (there are about 8,000 of those, less than 0.5% of the total number of articles) and measures how old the oldest unreviewed change is on these pages, on average. [15] Andreas JN466 09:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks man. I passed it on. Note (further down that diff) that Jimmy is about to pronounce on the value of flagged revisions on BLPs. He talks a good talk. Shame about the walk. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. And indeed, no such pronouncement on flagged revisions seems to have transpired as yet. Pity; it might have been useful. Andreas JN466 13:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 9

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 9, November-December 2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)

• New donations, including real-paper-and-everything books, e-books, science journal databases, and more
• New TWL coordinators, conference news, a new open-access journal database, summary of library-related WMF grants, and more
• Spotlight: "Global Impact: The Wikipedia Library and Persian Wikipedia" - a Persian Wikipedia editor talks about their experiences with database access in Iran, writing on the Persian project and the JSTOR partnership

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Note

to self: Touré

Blood pressure

Could you have a look at [16]? I think that's fair – those are verbatims from the cited sources – and it should address the complaints by A1candidate. Best, Andreas JN466 13:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I've no problem with your edit or User:A1candidate's following edit. [17] - the statement A1 removed (It is currently not possible to say whether meditation has any effect on health, as the research to date has been of poor quality) though obviously true is WP:SYN. We should wait for someone to do a rigorous review of all work on the health effects of TM, rather than do our own. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Anthonyhcole:

The statement was sourced to PMID 17764203 and PMID 16437509

• The first source fails the criteria of WP:MEDDATE and should be removed.

• The second source, a Cochrane review article, does not support what is being written. The study analyzed TM with two other relaxation techniques. The authors found that "There was no differential effect between the 3 treatments in reducing anxiety" and this is being used to make the claim that it's is not possible to say if TM has any effects on health

We cannot assume that someone will do a rigorous review in the future and conclude that TM has no effects whatsoever. Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. We simply state the health effect that is currently known, however modest, per WP:MEDRS.

-A1candidate (talk) 13:46, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no doubt that a competent, rigorous review of the current literature would find just what the Wikipedia editors concluded in the sentence you deleted.

Andreas, that AHA statement is why I stopped looking at the TM article. It is poorly-written and equivocal, and the lead authors are pushing the evidence much further than it warrants (and I suspect much further than any of the co-authors were prepared to go). It reminds me of a badly-written Wikipedia article on a contentious topic, the product of a very uncomfortable and hard-won compromise. The field is utterly polluted with crap science paid for by the company. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Did the lead authors of the statement have a TM association? (Speaking generally, while I have no high opinion of TM, I don't find it implausible to believe that, in the context of present-day lifestyles, a practice of sitting down quietly for a few hours each week might have a beneficial effect on things like stress and blood pressure. At any rate, while it doesn't validate the more far-fetched claims of the TM movement, it's probably not harmful to physical health ...) Andreas JN466 14:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of. I'm pretty sure they hadn't declared an association a couple of years ago, when I looked into it. I'll take another look. It's definitely harmless and several of my friends find much good in it. The evidence (poor though it is, thanks largely to the surfeit of crap science churned out by the company) does indicate modest lowering of BP similar to relaxation and health education - as you would expect. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Yew Chung Parents

How much do you feel that you know about the Yew Chung Parents incidents of 2009? Have you investigated all sides of the story, or have you only received the version that Wil Sinclair fed you? - Behaves underhandedly (talk) 13:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Disclosing family matters of someone you're in an internet spat with seems very creepy and inappropriate to me. Does exposing this stuff make the world a better place or this a closer approximation to an encyclopedia? Or is this about hurting someone because they hurt you? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Invisalign

Hi Anthony. You have previously reviewed my Request Edit for the Treatment Process section of this article. I'm now working on a Comparison with Wire Braces section, which is where all the more controversial medical claims are located. Once that's wrapped up, it should be GAN-ready. I was wondering if you could review my Request Edit here. I'm also in the process of addressing Doc James' objections, but haven't heard back from him just yet on on a remaining item. CorporateM (Talk) 17:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Carl Potts photo discussion

Hi. Thanks for participating in the photo discussion. I really appreciate it. One thing: A new photo has been uploaded and added to the discussion. I hope I'm not bothering you by asking if you would mind indicating whether this changes your viewpoint, or whether it remains unchanged? Thank you very much. Nightscream (talk) 12:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Would you have any suggestions?

A few months ago during the eventually unsuccessful Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Piotrus_3 you voted "oppose". I wonder if you'd like to discuss any concerns of yours in detail, or if you would have any suggestions in the event I'd decide to run again (which I am not planning to do anytime soon, but might consider in the future). For a better sense of my work and activities around the project, I invite you to consider reviewing my userpage, my talk page archives (which are not redacted), to watchlist my talk page, or use edit analysis tools like Wikichecker, content.paragr, dewkin, xtools-pages or xtools-ec (which in theory should work as of late 2014...). My FAs/GAs/DYKs are listed on my userpage. Thank you for your time, (PS. If you reply here, I'd appreciate a WP:ECHO or {{talkback}} ping). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

ANI comment

I thinks maybe you ended your comment a bit earlier than you expected? John Carter (talk) 15:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

 :o) Thanks John. Deleted one loose thread. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Problem is it's TL:DR for most, but hope the suggestion makes sense. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Ncmvocalist. What a vortex that is. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Renejs (talk) 04:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Got it, Renejs. Replied. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)