User talk:Anthonyhcole/Archive8

Older archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.

Hello Anthony

I have been asked to review the Parkinson's disease page on Wikipedia. I am a neurologist from the Maastricht University Medical Center in the Netherlands. Kuijf (talk) 15:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! Welcome, User:Kuijf. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Visceral pain, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages TCA and Somatic. 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) 10:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yo Ho Ho

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec15b}} to your friends' talk pages.

Thanks for all you have done this year :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas, Anthony

And may your holidays be merry and bright . . . . Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Best wishes for the holidays...

		Season's Greetings
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Adoration of the Shepherds (Poussin) is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 10:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed

You are receiving this message because you are a party or offered a preliminary statement and/or evidence in the Arbitration enforcement 2 case. This is a one-time message.

The Arbitration enforcement 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) has been closed, and the following remedies have been enacted:

1.1) The Arbitration Committee confirms the sanctions imposed on Eric Corbett as a result of the Interactions at GGTF case, but mandates that all enforcement requests relating to them be filed at arbitration enforcement and be kept open for at least 24 hours.

3) For his breaches of the standards of conduct expected of editors and administrators, Black Kite is admonished.

6) The community is reminded that discretionary sanctions have been authorised for any page relating to or any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed

Orphaned non-free image File:Umberto Saba & bird.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Umberto Saba & bird.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

interfering Pom

Hi Anthony - I have edited your recent Jimbotalk post; you had a majuscule where I think you intended a minuscule. The meaning has not changed, but apologies if this was too much. pablo 01:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated you pommie bastard. You can copy edit me any time. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sole founder is historical revisionism to be honest

See Larry Sanger. I hope Sanger returns to Wikipedia where experts will help improve article content. QuackGuru (talk) 19:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) QuackGuru, are you actually familiar with Larry Sanger, as I don't think anyone who's actually dealt with him recognizes the person you're describing? He's certainly not the saviour you appear to want to paint him as; there's a reason Citizendium failed. He's obsessed with micromanagement, and his contributions to Wikipedia/Nupedia when he was still active here, and to Citizendium since, are fairly universally terrible ([1], [2], [3] from Wikipedia, [4], [5], [6] from Citizendium, creation logs from Wikipedia and Citizendium so you can check I'm not cherry-picking), while his latest project seems to have been abandoned with half the links broken. Don't believe everything he tells you; he's not some kind of king-over-the-water waiting for the word to return and rescue Wikipedia. Jimbo has his problems, but his key strength is that he knows when to stay out of things when he doesn't have anything useful to add. The same can certainly not be said of Larry. ‑ Iridescent 19:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The Wikimedia Foundation has virtually no influence on what is written in Wikipedia." Anyone can edit and make counterproductive edits including adding mass original research as long as they got the consensus without any oversight. QuackGuru (talk) 19:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

QG, I admire Larry's commitment to reliability but, let's face it, he failed. Repeatedly. "Founder" is a blurry little code word for "genius behind". Fuck that. The best bits of this thing were born out of collaboration with hundreds of good people.

Iridescent, the problem with Jimmy is, he has nothing to add, at all. Ever. He's kind of cute and certainly has a knack for grabbing the limelight. He'd be ideal if he had something to contribute other than, "I am Wikipedia; Wikipedia's awesome; I am an internet genius; reward me; invite me to Davos and your island and did I mention give me money?" He needs to get off the dunny. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Sanger succeeded in co-founding Nupedia and creating Wikipedia. Wales wants Wikipedia to remain the same in the stone age. I want reform. QuackGuru (talk) 01:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, the only serious problem he sees with Wikipedia is incivility; and he hasn't really helped there. ("Utter fucking bullshit".) Tits on a bull. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have good ideas for reform. But the board does not want change. Out of the blue there are trying to shut down the ideas that will revolutionize Wikipedia. People keep telling me there is no secret cabal. QuackGuru (talk) 01:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The most economical explanation for their inaction on reliability is ignorance, not conspiracy. What are these ideas they're trying to shut down? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They are trying to shut down everything. They are trying to delete the new essay. Then there are nominating the redirects for deletion. QuackGuru (talk) 01:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What new essay? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Reform of Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 02:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's Guy. He's entitled to try, but I doubt he'll succeed. The foundation (as opposed to the board), particularly Lila and Jake Orlowitz, have been very supportive of my reliability initiative, and generous with their time and advice. The only thing holding me back is my own procrastination and incompetence. Speaking of which, I must now go and moderate an expert review I've put on hold for three days. :o) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you have ideas for reform please share them on the talk page. You can expand the essay too. Thanks. QuackGuru (talk) 02:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I'm up to. There's nothing to discuss yet. It's a pilot. But so far, so good. James mentioned a couple of days ago that he may be able to organise something similar for another article: get an expert to bring it up to FA, and then get the editor in chief of the top relevant journal to recruit the top names in the topic to review it.

We're trying to create a new class of article that is reliable. Though I've been over-thinking and way over-working this thing (being new and all) it's turning out to be surprisingly easy. I'd like to see all the top journals taking responsibility for the articles in their field, under the watchful eye of experienced Wikipedia editors to ensure compliance with our policies. We'll see. Early days. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are issues with articles I edit such as editors restoring OR and using studies to get what they want in the article.

Those ideas are good. I added the link to the new essay for now. Wikipedia is okay with experts editing Wikipedia but they do not like expert authority. I want it to go one step further. I want more reliability with a new organization that will have super admins and experts to oversee article content. They will receive donations to keep things running. I explained this in the new essay. QuackGuru (talk) 02:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That certainly is a revolutionary proposal. Hard to imagine it being endorsed by the majority in the current climate, though. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is not needed. The community does not decide if the board started a new organization. If implemented the talk pages across health-related articles would turn in a ghost town and the bias editors would find another hobby. Articles would greatly improve and editors would be afraid of adding OR because the super admins will not tolerate it. QuackGuru (talk) 03:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt the board will act on this without wide support within the community. Even then, they may not act. The community nominated members seem to have little awareness that unreliability is a problem. As for the board-appointed members - an accountant, a PR man, ~~an HR executive~~ - no chance. Not sure about Alice Wiegand. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliability is a serious problem. Wikipedia has no mechanism to stop editors from replacing sourced text with OR. Even after talk page discussion my comments are being ignored. There is no way to remove the OR and unreliable sources from the lead. Admins refuse to help. This confirms reform is needed. Other editors appear to like the chaos. The board is doing nothing to improve article content. The board is unknowingly encouraging editors to violate the rules. There is no wikiproject to deal with the mass problems.

If the board ignores the problems on Wikipedia then they are not doing their job. If a person is not doing their job then they are usually fired. I don't understand how the board members are allowed to ignore what is most important. The WMF is the most controversial organization in the world. They don't believe in accurate content. QuackGuru (talk) 18:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo has never guided Wikipedia. Jimbo has never made decisions for a more accurate encyclopedia. Jimbo is faking it. QuackGuru (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding faking it, Jimmy doesn't even pretend to care about the appalling state of the encyclopedia and the editing community, and certainly doesn't pretend to be doing anything about it. He's indifferent. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wales did not create Wikipedia. Others created Wikipedia while Wales was busy with Bomis at the time. Wales was hands-off from the very beginning. He has no sense of responsibility and is uncaring. Something should be done about the chaos on Wikipedia. Admins think OR is a content dispute. Everything on Wikipedia needs reform. I don't understand why the community likes chaos. Small changes can quickly turn things around. QuackGuru (talk) 19:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits at User talk:Jimbo Wales

Anthony:

I have to concur with Guy Macon. Your recent edits at Jimbo's talk page are "insulting and baiting". That type of thing is not welcome there. Please take a day or two to reflect on the benefits of civility before editing there again. If you confine yourself to civil discussion, I'm sure you will be welcome on that page. If you continue insulting and baiting, I'm sure you will not be welcome. In any case Jimbo does not welcome "fact-free rants".

Please be careful, and all the best.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Macon is not making any sense. I don't have a clue what he is saying. Jimbo is not making any decisions for the community. QuackGuru (talk) 23:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]