It's nice to get out of the city for a while. (I do find myself constantly checking to see if my internet connection has risen from 0 to 1 bar. I guess I"m hooked.) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew Wakefield
Would you mind having another look at the above article. I'm trying to go over the same point you raised earlier in the year but having little success in getting anything other than an adversarial discussion. Happy to back down if i'm wrong but would appreciate an experienced opinion. Nernst (talk) 00:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Apologies, I see you've already been editing the article since the discussion started so are presumably aware there's a discussion on the talk page. KR Nernst (talk) 00:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
MastCell once wisely said "About mediation - the problem is that not every dispute should be mediated. Sometimes one person is wrong, and they need to be told that they're wrong with the least possible fanfare. Mediators are fine, as long as they understand that pushing every situation toward a 50/50 compromise is not mediation." I don't agree with SkepticalRaptor's approach to Wikipedia but I don't think Nernst's approach or POV is "reasonable" either. This is an ongoing issue lasting months with Nernst. If he's honest about being "happy to back down" then the time to do so has long past IMO. Colin°Talk19:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We're calling someone a fraud, based on something other than a court finding, so intelligent scrutiny from editors who aren't regulars on the topic is good, in my opinion. Of course we're right but it's not black and white. And if Nernst has been treated with the same degree of respect all along that I've witnessed at Andrew Wakefield then I fully support them seeking other opinions. I'm getting heartily sick of the rudeness here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Behavioral optometry
Hi Anthony, I have left extensive notes regarding Behavioural Optometry and wondered what your response was. I ran what I had written past my orthoptist colleagues at the University and they felt what I had written was pretty sound, so hope that you get this communication....still not quite sure how to do it....feel it not polite to edit the page without your opinion. Peace Peaceful072.102.97.1 (talk) 08:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
HI Anthony, I have emailed Dr Brendan Barrett at Bradford University Optometry School to arrange to talk to him sometime this week about jointly writing something more definitive on this page and of course having it written in conjunction with yourself. I have read up on the Wikipedia code of conduct and the idea of a conflict of interest so want to have something written which looks at both sides of the discussion with equal equanimity. Peace2.102.97.180 (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's good. The most important guideline that you and Dr Barrett should read is Identifying reliable sources/Medicine - it covers the kind of sources we can use to build a Wikipedia medical article (basically, reviews, meta analyses, graduate level textbooks, and professional or scholarly organisation guidelines and position statements). Unless you master that guideline, you will waste a lot of time. Writing WP med articles is a fairly arduous and exacting task. Essentially, all assertions need to be supported by sources that conform to that guideline. So it isn't just a matter of knowing your stuff, you have to find a good published source that supports every assertion. Let me know when you need me. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Anthony, I am speaking to him tomorrow and will discuss this with him. We are both busy though hopefully can both make time to do something worthwhile. 2.102.96.33 (talk) 18:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Anthony, I have left a message for Molly on the "vision therapy" page as regards editing this page and that of vision therapy. I spoke to Brendan this week and have agreed that I will write something definitive which he will review before publication. Let me know if you would like to look at the framework first before posting and can alter it as seems appropriate. See this as being a collaborative project and what Molly has written on her page seems well reasoned. If you want to recommend other people on your side of the equation let me know. As regards referencing thanks for the guidelines though am used to referencing reports which are sent to other health professionals so ensure that the references used are of quality. Am sure that you will pick up on it otherwise. Congratulations on the star by the way :-) peacePeaceful07 (talk) 05:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, let's work together on this. Post an outline, and any sources you intend using, on User:Peaceful07/Behavioral optometry. We can construct the article there and then merge it into or replace the existing article when it's ready. Writing Wikipedia medical articles is more constrained than a lot of medical or scholarly writing so I do urge you to read those guidelines, even though you are familiar with other modes of scholarly publishing. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you concentrate only one editor there are plenty of editors that edits solely in WP:ARBPIA(look at the log of topic bans and notifications) and they certainly here to promote their point of view?Do you think they should be all banned?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX19:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a bit interested in ARBPIA. I noticed Plot Spoiler at ALCAT test where he battled furiously against five experienced medical editors to advertise and promote and present as effective a commercial medical test that's been shown to be ineffective for the purpose. He deprecated the best sources and pushed for the inclusion of celebrity endorsements, and when it became clear that the article would continue to report what reliable sources have to say about the test, he took the article to AFD. That's (i) immoral and (ii) bad for the encyclopedia. One of the medical editors asked him if he had a COI and he deflected and dithered before denying it. I got curious. So I went through his edit history - all of it - to see if he had form.
This is where it gets interesting. I recommend you look at the history:
July 2012: When the online PR professional, Killian Roche from IWL, ran into trouble at Meridian Audio[1] Plot Spoiler took over and created a puff piece. I removed this embarrassing puffery.
While perusing his contributions, I couldn't help but notice he's almost exclusively focussed on ARBPIA, and when I saw the appalling thing he did to the Warwick Hotel, and then the problematical Palestinian incitement, I decided to ask whether he's editing tendentiously in that area too. It really is an afterthought.
But if I find he's terrible in that area (and, although the Warwick was very bad, and his behaviour on other articles like National Iranian American Council has been bad, what I've seen so far doesn't rise to terrible) I will take that forward because we do need to start effectively addressing civil POV-pushers here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very proud of my work at Kiehl's and I appreciate you taking note of that. I hope you can give me respect for some of my other worthwhile contributions (just take a look at a few of my DYKs like Mexican pointy boots). I'd also like to note that Iran-related issues are outside of the ARBPIA framework - unless they relate to Israel. Overall I do recognize that some of my editing has been sub-optimal and I am dedicated to improving it. Regardless of all that's going on, I hope we can work together more collaboratively in the future. Plot Spoiler (talk) 00:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mexican pointy boots is great! (I hadn't looked at it before. And Ami Miron is a credit to you.) You do good work, and most of what you do in Abrahamic/Middle Eastern topics is fine and valuable. But when you step across the line ... it's more of a leap. :) I'll speak to you later when I'm back home, and I won't be posting anything more about you until we've spoken again. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The entire Hastings encyclopedia is available at archive.org, but, unfortunately, only in individual downloads for each separate volume. I ran a check at the Highbeam Research site, though, and found at least four other, more recent reference books which contain articles on the subject. I could easily e-mail them to you, but I would need your address to forward them. I don't think wikipedia's internal e-mail system allows for attachments. But if you were to send me your address, I would be more than willing to forward them. They are all at least moderately long, and should between them provide both a decent idea for what content should be included, but also, I think, some of the better reference sources to use in developing it. John Carter (talk) 17:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have listening capabilities. Is there a writen transcript of this? Can I download to MP3 or something and put it on an ipod to listen to in the car? ParkSehJik (talk) 06:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked carefully enough at the debate on that page to have an opinion on the relevance of Burton's Anatomy to the article - though I imagine it may warrant a mention in the history section. I meant that pointing to that podcast was a bit irrelevant to the current discussion. I've had a look over the BBC site for a downloadable version or transcript but failed, I'm afraid. I'm listening to them on my laptop. I find Melvyn Bragg's style very accessible. There is a chronological list of available podcasts here and the same list (I think) arranged by topic here: Science, History, Philosophy, Culture, and Religion. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your user page helps improve Wikipedia
Your user page helps improve Wikipedia. Because you were listening to the BBC Burton talk, I went to your user page to see why. I found books you are currently reading. I have a joke I tell whenever I meet someone for the first time, especially in a tense or charged situation. I say, "OK, lets just cut to the chase... ... ... What books are you reading." Re "The making of Intelligence", I have original editions of many of Francis Galton books, and of those around him, like Karl Pearson, T.H. Huxley, etc. Your user page reminded me that I had not looked some of that stuff for some time, and most of it never. Since little of it is available online, I should go back and have some reading fun, and likely discover much conent missing from Wikipedia. I similarly found a visit to User:FiachraByrne, then reading the sources in the topics on articles in her sandbox. ParkSehJik (talk) 06:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fiachra knows a bit about the history of psychiatry. I found The Making of Intelligence in a market stall in a small country town I was passing through recently, and since my internet connection was poor I decided to try an actual paper book again. Cosy reading by the orange light of a hurricane lamp. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I asked Ocaasi, who has access to EdwardsBot and, because he had been recently criticised for over-liberal use of the bot, he took it to ANI to get a third opinion but approval was declined. You might try asking another person on the access list.
I do not know, but if you had more information on your user page, I might have more idea. There is plenty of information about me on my user page. Cheers. --Bduke(Discussion)07:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I said, "All of the 'delete' voters [that] I know are from the USA and UK."
You said, "Not so. I'm from Melbourne. I still think this article is writing news and not an encyclopedia."
Yes, you should have ignored it, but you gave the impression that you knew all the active Australian editors and I think I have been pretty active. Oz bed time now for old guys like me. --Bduke(Discussion)11:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But the other editor did not seem to know it <g>. The fact is that, aside from some articles on new sects which sometimes get into heated discussions (Scientology anyone?), Wikipedia is pretty fair to religions, and does not show the "Christian bias" asserted. I commented on his RfC about using a bunch of religous symbols which seem arbitrarily chosen as an image on the Religion article. Collect (talk) 14:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I don't think we have a major problem in the area. (Calling Jewish creation stories "narratives" and everybody else's "myths" is a little problematical, but hardly egregious.) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Improve it on Breast cancer awareness then. Leave that essay out of your dispute. I'll have a look at the history of BCA and get back to you. Maybe not today, though. Have you discussed the article anywhere other than on the article's talk page? If so, can you point me to those discussions, please? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to spare the NPOV page which is why I told WLU to knock it off. The article has been discussed on several user talk pages, but more importantly, there have been discussions on DRN and NPOVN.
Thanks. I've had a look, and won't be involving myself there. I don't have enough understanding of the topic, or the time and interest to do the reading necessary to add value to the discussion. Wikipedia hosts many articles that present their topic in an overall negative light. Often with good reason.
You are less familiar with the norms and policies here than anyone else involved in the discussions. Hyperbolic rants and flamboyant gestures may gain attention but won't win respect or a willingness to engage. Be polite and respectful. There may (or may not - I truly don't know) be merit in your position but making progress in a collaborative environment relies on more than just being right. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. This new theory may not have been subjected to published scholarly review yet - I couldn't see evidence of it on my first look. I'll read it carefully and respond on the editor's talk page in the next 24 hours. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Painful coinage
Hi Anthony, while reviewing my own DRN, I happened to notice the DRN you opened. I did a little clicking around and noticed: The email address on Omoigui's Med Hypotheses articles is "medicinechief@aol.com". Omoigui's LA Pain Center is in Hawthorne, CA. IP editor 75.22.67.232 made this edit. That IP geolocates to Glendale, CA, about 20 miles away from and just on the other side of LA from the LA Pain Center. Just some information for you to review. I will keep my eye on your DRN, and may chime in if you don't mind. Zad6818:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm very relaxed about that kind of thing. In fact, I'm looking forward to the day when all the big guns in science and medicine are arguing it out on our article talk pages. As for that DRN thread, I'm pretty sure it's all over bar the shouting now, but you're welcome to chime in if you like. (Are non-parties supposed to jump into threads there? I don't know; I think it's my first time.)
Btw. I think his theory has legs. Inflammation has been much-neglected by pain medicine - though it's getting a lot more attention lately. It would be great to see a revolutionary new theory emerge from a self-published book and a couple of Medical Hypotheses articles. :)
Noted. The DRN that I have been involved in is winding down without resolution, sadly--my first real one, and it appears that outside opinions aren't just allowed but welcome. And your "eh, so what?" reaction sounds like Doc James... I remember him describing the policy in this area to someone, and immediately followed up the explanation with, "...but honestly I just ignore it." There's probably no change in how we react to the proposed content change at the article, the only bit of 'help' it might give those involved in the discussion is some idea of what the counterarguments might look like. It'd be great if the 'inflammation theory' were 100% dead on and the new pain management recommendations based on the theory proved to be super-effective... of course, the encyclopedia article will have to wait until the theory sees traction in well-respected mainstream secondary sources before we include it. Zad6819:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Ning-ning. I should explain that I believe editors with a potential COI should make it known to those they engage with on an article talk page. In this example I think Qworty has done the right thing in pointing out Rosencomet's COI for the benefit of others. I don't agree that Rosencomet should recuse himself from talk page discussion, though, and any further discussion on that should take place elsewhere. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The World might be surprised that we don't already have something, the community I'm less sure of. But I'd give us a better than even chance of doing this provided we try to do it in a way that resolves as many objections as possible. ϢereSpielChequers11:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is all WP:OR. The invitation policy is documented in the official researchgate news site. Just because they call it a "blog" doesn't make it a blog. It's their official news announcement page. It's even called news.resarchgate. Neither is wikileaks a "blog" or OR. Granted, Wikileaks does not state that the email was obviously not sent intentionally, but it does explicitely say that the emails were adressed not to real persons. The recipient addresses obviously are not personal, this does not need research. So IMHO you are overshooting things. If we'd only allow literal quotations from books, wikipedia would be pretty much empty! But what irritates me most is that you removed stuff without participating in the ongoing discussion on the talk page, for example on whether the actual "blog" is a reliable enough source. You shouldn't be making things as simple as "it's called a blog so it's bad". There is much more to the situation. First of all, the author of the blog has commented (see the blog). Still, some of the people on the talk page have argumented that apparently he is a researcher, and not at all anonymous. So what exactly makes him less relevant than the copy&paste annoucements from the company PR department that are all over the media? I'm not trying to say we should override the blog authors own interpretation (in fact, I'd suggest to follow it). But you surely should have participated in the discussion instead of just deleting text. Thank you. --91.52.23.39 (talk) 23:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...please count me in my friend,... i'll be very, very happy to be part of the group,... giving support as translator (to castillan,... spanish), and doing another things,... from the next day, or 2 (i hopes),...
with my regards,... --Cpant23 (talk) 17:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's great. I've added you to the list of interested people. We're not quite up and running yet. When the membership list opens I'll drop a note on your talk page. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
His concern is that you have joined our nefarious conspiracy against the virtue of Wikipedia. Wnt is clearly on the side of the angels and has exposed us as being in service of the devils, but no matter. The appointed hour is upon us. Yea, the time has come to plunge Wikipedia into a thousand years of darkness! Soon we shall usurp the heavenly authorities and lay our rightful claim to Paradise! Surgere! Servi ex infernae!--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb.18:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
describes WikiBilim as follows: The public Foundation “Wikibilim” is the regional branch of Wikimedia foundation inc. in Kazakhstan and it is engaged in the development of the Kazakh language section of the Wikipedia.
Note that Jimmy Wales is on the Creative Commons board. He might well argue that the way this has been phrased must be an error, but it seems to have been stated on the page like this for more than a year. At the very least it may serve as an indication that WikiBilim has been allowed to state in public that it is an official representative of the Wikimedia Foundation.
The page also states that At Wikimania-2011 Mr. Jimmy Wales awarded Wikibilim with his personal grant to organize regional Wikipedia conference.
I have now heard from three different Kazakh speakers about the quality of articles in the Kazakh Wikipedia. They are in agreement that the articles on potentially controversial topics like Nursultan Nazarbaev or the 2011 Mangystau riots simply state the Kazakh government line. The entirety of that latter article in the Kazakh Wikipedia was written by a WikiBilim official. No one with an understanding of how censorious dictatorships work would expect anything else in these circumstances. Best, AndreasJN46619:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Similar here, on the official Creative Commons weblog:
Wikibilim, a non-profit organisation which also operates as the local representative of Wikimedia. Wikibilim in turn is supported by the Government of Kazakhstan and personally by the Prime-Minister Mr. Karim Masimov.AndreasJN46619:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not even an accredited chapter is a regional branch of Wikimedia Foundation. Someone has been overstating their relationship with the foundation. Have you spoken to anyone at the foundation about this yet?
"Sensitive" articles imported from the government encyclopedia Kazakhstan are going to be propaganda, but the vast majority of encyclopedia articles are uncontroversial; so, on the whole, I think that project is good.
The Kazakh government is going to pay people to edit Kazakh Wikipedia, it's what such governments do, and we can expect those editors to write what they're told in "sensitive" articles. What's problematical is the idea that the foundation might accredit such an organisation. Really, government-paid editors should be regarded as paid advocates.
You know this, but I'll say again, I think the work you do is very necessary, and I really appreciate it. I might as well say this on-wiki too: I think you owe Jimbo an apology. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for saying that. What do you think I owe Jimbo an apology for: mentioning Blair, or passing on his e-mail a couple of months ago?
I haven't passed my concerns about these wordings on the CC site on to anyone at the Foundation. I just find it incomprehensible how Jimmy, a board member of both WMF and Creative Commons, can say with a straight face that WikiBilim are completely independent of WMF, when they openly describe themselves as WMF representatives in Kazakhstan, report proudly that they received his personal grant, and Wales in return makes their leader Wikipedian of the Year. AndreasJN46620:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The email. They are, corporately, as far as I can tell, independent of the foundation. But they have an obvious de facto imprimatur. You have made the case for the inappropriateness of that very well. And I certainly hope ChapCom heeds this and recommends the foundation not touch WikiBilim with a barge pole, and, regardless of their recommendation, that the foundation regretfully advises WikiBilim that their application for recognition must be declined while it is receiving government money.
Should Wikimedia be hosting a Kazakh Wikipedia if most of the "sensitive" content will be controlled by government employees and partisans? It's not clear to me yet: I'm still absorbing all of this. Someone should fund an experiment: employ a team of anonymous independent Kazakh scholars to make a few "sensitive" Kazakh Wikipedia articles conform to our neutrality policy - from outside of the country's borders - and report on the experience. That due diligence would be a responsible use of donor's funds in my opinion, akin to calling in the auditors to WM:UK, and should add substantially to the evidence base that informs Wikimedia's decisions. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I apologised for that at the time: [6], also [7]. There were competing considerations though, and I still think there was a public interest served. Note that I came to this conclusion after years of supporting Jimbo. I will not stand on a pedestal, China-style, and beat my breast, explaining how I was wrong to disrespect the glorious chairman, in the hope of being forgiven.
Otherwise, my thinking is similar to yours. I would only add that the Wikipedian of the Year title has been used in government PR. It does make the regime look good: everybody associates Wikipedia with freedom of speech. So if you hear about such an accolade in the context of the Kazakh Wikipedia it makes a quite misleading impression as to that country's actual record on freedom of speech, which is appalling. Newspapers which do not toe the line have been shut down, and their journalists physically attacked, without the attackers being brought to justice. http://en.rsf.org/kazakhstan.htmlhttp://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-press/2012/kazakhstanhttps://www.cpj.org/europe/kazakhstan/
Now, put yourself in the Kazakh regime's position. Why would you want Jimbo to come to Kazakhstan – what would it mean to you? If I were them, I would give Jimbo the VIP treatment: a full cultural programme, good food, sightseeing, etc. Kazakhstan is a beautiful country. I would treat Wales like a king, and get him to meet with my "king", the President. I would make him so happy that he will have a big smile on his face when he shakes Nazarbaev's hand. And then I would take the picture of that handshake and put it on my government websites, including those of my embassies, just to demonstrate how well the President gets on with this so-called free-speech advocate, and how much he is liked and respected by that free-speech advocate (never mind that his free speech activism and constituency is focused on Western teenagers' ability to watch pirated Hollywood movies for free in their bedrooms rather than actual free speech where it matters). So, is there a way in which the WMF could perhaps not play into this likely agenda, given the suffering documented at the above links, and given that every propaganda success for the regime makes it more likely that this suffering will continue unabated? AndreasJN46610:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I read those comments at the time. You didn't apologise for the betrayal of trust that, in my view, it was.
All the rest, I completely agree. Jimbo needs to fully inform himself about the nature of this regime, and decide whether his smile and handshake should be offered at this point. In response to a suggestion from Rd232, Jimbo said, "3 weeks ago, I spoke at a fundraiser for Human Rights Watch, and introduced Kenneth Roth and George Soros. I've never talked to people from Human Rights Watch about Kazakhstan, but will email Kenneth now to see who I should talk to there. Thanks for the suggestion, a rather obvious one that I should have done myself. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)" [8] Let's see. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anthony, I appreciate your input on AN and User talk:Hex. One detail, though, re "the morons supporting you in that thread"; do you actually see anybody supporting him? Because I don't. It's true that Scott M got in first with his usual disspiriting "don't-undo-any-block-however-outlandish-without-consensus" King Charles' head without spending any time looking into the circumstances of the unblock… but, despite the thanks he got for it,[9] I wouldn't really call that support for Hex. Anyway. Yes, the thread is quite upsetting to read, indeed it makes one ashamed to be a member of the same club, but I still don't think arbcom will accept it as a case, because, however hair-raising the details and circumstances, it's one block, and normally they just won't do that. They might even point out that the block is amply admonished by the community on AN, with all the evidence laid out in the sun, so what else can ArbCom do? (Other than desysop, which they wouldn't in any case ever do for one block.) But as far as ArbCom, I see Floq has already responded on AN to much the same effect. Bishonen | talk 22:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC). P.S. Just noticed you removed your usertalk comment. Bishonen | talk22:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Yes, that was my faulty memory. I was thinking of Scott's initial response and IRWolfie's knee-jerk minimising. Moron was a bit harsh, I don't know either well enough to justify that. I'll take it to ArbCom regardless, if no one beats me to it. It's their job. How else are we supposed to correct this? I've just been reading through his three RfA's. Amazing. [10][11][12]. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
'strordinary that the third one succeeded, isn't it. It wasn't even a time when the argument "we need more admins at all costs" held sway the way it does today. Bishonen | talk23:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
I'm contacting you because, as a participant at Wikiproject Medicine, you may be interested in a new non-profit organization we're forming at m:WikiMed. Our purpose is to help improve the range and quality of free online medical content, and we'll be working with like-minded organizations, such as the World Health Organization, professional and scholarly societies, medical schools, governments and NGOs - including Translators Without Borders.
Thanks and happy to contribute. My particular interest is in Cancer field. Of course, it is a very extensive field on its own but look forward to learn more details about the project and contribute accordingly. Thanks! --Samir (talk) 00:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great. I'll add you to the list of interested people and let you know when we're up and running. Do you have any interest in cancer pain or paraneoplastic syndromes? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure and I will wait. Please post at my talk page for message requiring attention. Paraneoplastic syndrome is something I can work upon. However, I like to know the broader theme and current stubs your team is focusing on to expand further on wikipedia. --Samir (talk) 03:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Birbeck Pain Project
Hi Anthony, I'm not sure if this will quite intersect with your own interest in pain but one would expect that publications from members of the Birbeck Pain Project should be relatively imminent. Joanna Burke [13], who heads the study, had a short article in the Lancet recently which gives some indication of their research interests and approach: Languages of pain. Anyhow, I'm not sure if this kind of historical treatment is relevant to your interests but I just thought I'd post in case it was. FiachraByrne (talk) 01:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. That's a heavy academic path she's treading: the history of fear, hatred and sexual violence - and now pain! Cool. I am interested in that project, and that bibliography at the bottom of the last link is enticing. Thanks for the tip.
Well, my opinion is that given the POVs of the wiki-rationalists and proponents of alternative medicine it's unlikely a decent analytical article will ever emerge. Similarly, I dabbled a bit with the talk page of Race and intelligence earlier and there's little reward in contributing to such polarized articles, I think, relative to the amount of work you have to put in; plus, you really have to have expertise to manage those kinds of disputes (which I certainly don't have in relation to "race" and "IQ"/). Instead, I've taken the rather wonderfully neglected article History of alternative medicine which I'm in the process of entirely rewriting. It's not a collaborative process but that's not necessarily a bad thing. When I'm finished I'll "subvert" some of its contents into the parent article and see how the regular editors react. Then I can finish the article I should be working on (Bethlem Royal Hospital. However, I've been rather distracted from editing due to reading up over the past few weeks on the history of various significant wikipedia figures such as SandyGeorgia (very impressive), Malleus Fatuorum, Mattisse, Jack Merridew, and the whole FA conflict. Fascinating levels of dysfunction. The whole governance structure here needs to be revamped. I'm increasingly of the view that some kind of editorial board should be set up for some content areas at least (e.g. medical articles) perhaps drawn from members of active wikiprojects that have not been paralysed by editors with obvious and debilitating personality disorders; it goes against the ethos here but it's the only way to raise and maintain decent standards. The civility proposal on your user page is interesting - I like the idea of defining and managing article talk space differently and allowing venting in other venues. Not sure how if it would work however ... a lot of the good content editors are pretty verbally pugnacious and not entirely without cause (having said that a lot of the intellectually condescending shit "some" of them engage in is very off-putting and, where no subtext or power-play exists, somewhat unnecessary). I think it's more a political than a policy problem, however. The lack of coherent formal political structures here - despite the multitudinous, byzantine, quasi-legal processes that proliferate under the logic of "consensus" - means that tribalism plays an inordinately important role. Anyhow, I'm glad to see people like yourself politicking for change! FiachraByrne (talk) 03:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right about the controversial articles. Fortunately, although they're very noisy and visible, they're a tiny minority and, especially in medicine, the majority are quiet gardens.
I've just caught up with the Mattisse outing. Those poor featured article people, including Sandy Georgia (yep, awesome) a year ago were being harried by three sock puppets of editors returning with a grudge.
Thanks Anthony. It was a fools errand. Alt med gets half as many views as cataract and probably none of them are from worried patients looking for guidence and reassurance following diagnosis. It was arrogance buoyed by a couple of successful edits and serves me right for ignoring good advice. Trouble is I don't feel I can leave a worse mess than I found. History of alt med is superb, if a little academic for a general encyclopaedia, I hope the subversion is successful. I'll try for quiet garden/guardians though in life I always seem to end up in the soup (the immature man wishes to die for a noble cause, the mature man wishes to live humbly for one - JD Salinger) Aspheric (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here's wishing you and yours a joyous, healthful, and productive 2013!
Please accept a belated thank you for the well wishes upon my retirement as FAC delegate this year, and apologies for the false alarm of my first—and hopefully last—retirement; the well wishes extended me were most kind, but I decided to return, re-committed, when another blocked sock was revealed as one of the factors aggravating the FA pages this year.
Maintaining standards in featured content requires vigilance, dedication and knowledge of people like you, who are needed; reviews are always welcome at FAC, FAR and TFA requests. Somehow, somehow we never ever seem to do nothin' completely nice and easy, but here's hoping that 2013 will see a peaceful road ahead and a return to the quality and comaraderie that defines the FA process, thanks to many dedicated Wikipedians!
I was so pleased to see that outing of MT. Yes, let's hope that's the end of the bull shit (for a little while at least). Can you point me to one page that tells me everything I need to know about being a great FA reviewer, please? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anthony, please consider working on your RFAR in userspace or a text editor and only pasting it in when it's reasonably complete. Beginning with a skeleton is only going to annoy arbs, clerks and others, while also (surely) being pointlessly stressful for yourself. If I were you, I'd remove the framework you've posted.
Or, second best, if you want to make sure people know it's upcoming: leave it but at least add a case name! (I won't pretend not to understand what it's going to be about, so... just the relevant username would work fine, it's the usual practice.) Bishonen | talk20:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Sorry, I didn't realise it was visible. Never done this before. I'm not committed to filing it yet, so I'll post it into my user space now and work on it there. Thanks for letting me know. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anthony, this is just my 2 cents, not really trying to talk you out of anything. I'm still not convinced an AC case is going to help. Although I've been wrong before, I think they'll get a couple of dozen statements, then decline as premature, probably suggesting an WP:RFC/ADMIN. Perhaps they'd go with my proposed Short and Sweet ArbCom Motion(TM) ("Motion: That was a jaw-droppingly bad block. It isn't just imaginary admin-hating jackals at WP:AN saying this, it's ArbCom. Hex, don't do that anymore.") but I tend to think more highly of my own solutions to problems than others seem to. If I were you, I'd probably note at AN that if he makes another block like this in the future, you'll file an AC case, but then drop it. That said, I'm not you, I understand and respect your motivations here, and Hex's characterization of them is way off base. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I must have missed it, can you point me to where he's been characterising my motivations? He's had plenty of time now to respond to your very conciliatory overtures and hasn't. Although I am concerned for his feelings, as I think my email demonstrated, I'm more concerned for the health of this project, and we need to maintain some standards in our admins' behaviour. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well... it's not going to make you less likely to file an AC case, that's for sure! I thought you'd filed in response to that, actually. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(You thought he'd filed in response one minute after Hex posted? Sorry, Floq, I seem to keep picking on you. I love you really.) Anthony, you've got mail. Bishonen | talk21:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Yep, I don't read that fast. I was just prepping it because I knew it would take a while. If he had demonstrated some kind of insight, I was going to scrap it. Unfortunately, the opposite has happened. So, I think I have to file it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone written a summary of issues related to the topics — sort of a one page review of the proposals? This is a lot of material to wade through, especially if you want to continually refer back to it. —Neotarf (talk) 23:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anthony, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=487087188&oldid=487084656 where Philiippe stated that child pornography was removed from the servers "as required by law" and reported to the authorities. According to his statement to you just now, however, "images that are problematic are oversighted and not deleted from the servers. There's a very good reason for that: law enforcement advised us to do so, so that the image remains in place for their investigation, should they need it. After a certain amount of time, we have it quietly removed." I am now confused. --AndreasJN46617:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can see how he read it the way he did. That he hasn't, on reflection, seen that my concerns were reasonable is, well, disappointing to say the least but that's up to him. I won't accept his insulting faux apology though. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to help. It helps to know your budget and what kind of photos you are going to be taking. Are you just wanting high-quality family snapshots and holiday photos, or aiming to take it up as a hobby and be creative? Why don't you drop me an email so we can correspond more easily. Colin°Talk08:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bishonen just told me she sent an email to Bishzilla and it didn't arrive, and they're discussing email problems at User_talk:Beeblebrox#Blocked_as_compromised_account. en.Wikipedia's servers are moving from Florida to Virginia right now, and it's probably related to that.
I'll be taking photos to illustrate Wikipedia articles, and recording the oral history of a friend, so I think I want high acuity interchangeable lenses and high resolution stills. I'd like it to accept an external mic, capture high quality sound and capture video at a resolution that looks brilliant on an A4 sized screen, I think. Do you have any idea what I should look at? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well I hope it fixes itself soon. I changed my password yesterday so I hope it isn't related to that. I think you've emailed me in the past so I may have your address at home. I'll look for it in the evening when I've got more free time. I'll compile some more questions. You need to think how "pro" you want your photos to be, your audio-video to be, and how much money you are prepared to spend because this isn't a cheap hobby. Colin°Talk16:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hoping I can have all that for under $5,000. $3,000 would be nice. I'll await the restoration of email. You might try email at meta, in case they're just moving en.WP at the moment.[14] --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Pratyeka 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—
This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been declined. Please see the Arbitrators' opinions for potential suggestions on moving forward.
As to further issues regarding Dempster, I would suggest a close reading of User:The Popes comments, understanding he has been in WP:BLP territory longer than most eds on wikipedia, and is good at what he understands and what he does. Also getting involved 'in real life' with subjects of articles, regardless of your opinion of them, is something many editors would advise against on the basis that it then puts you into potential WP:COI and WP:OWN territory, something that could see you under the microscope from some not so pleasant admins from elsewhere... not a pleaant experience I suggest... sats04:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very concerned about COI editing on Wikipedia. I deal with a bit of it in our medical articles (academics spamming their theories, companies pushing their drugs and other products, etc.). I work with COI editors to plunder them for useful information but keep our articles neutral. That's what I intend doing here. If you're implying that my communicating with the subject disqualifies me from working on the article or means I necessarily have personal COI or WP:OWN issue, and I'm not certain that's what you mean, I don't think that necessarily follows.
Well, I prefer to discuss article content on article talk pages, but completely agree that editor behaviour, including OWN and COI belong elsewhere. I'll check my watchlist from time to time but feel free to ping me here if there's a discussion happening somewhere other than the article talk page that I need to attend to. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Pope has paid you compliment at the wa project/noticeboard talk page - for what you have done, well done in that case. sats05:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anthony, thank you for your support during my RfA. The RfA did not have the desired outcome, but I will work to treat it as a learning experience in continued Wikipedia editing. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With reference to m:WikiMed, I wish to express my willingness to participate. Moreover, you are an experienced contributor. You may look into the sort of contributions I make. I seek cooperation in this regard.DiptanshuTalk11:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
New Article Feedback version available for testing
Hey all.
As promised, we've built a set of improvements to the Article Feedback Tool, which can be tested through the links here. Please do take the opportunity to play around with it, let me know of any bugs, and see what you think :).
A final reminder that the Request for Comment on whether AFT5 should be turned on on Wikipedia (and how) is soon to close; for those of you who have not submitted an opinion or !voted, it can be found here.
Hey Anthony I find that is does not format well on my monitor without either 2 or 30em [18]. As we have many thousands of articles using this should we look at ways to fix the mobile site so they view better? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Anthony, for catching that. I don't know what "atomic anomia" is, but I'd hate to catch it.
I appreciate the edit. Thanks!
-Pete
Cephas Atheos (talk) 01:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Davidson school project
Regarding the autism page: many have already commented on this and the teacher and students have stated that will not modify the main article. Similarly they know that secondary sources should be used. Teacher has stated that most work at this point is being done outside wiki, so that we should not worry much regarding info on talk pages, but he has been quite assuring regarding use of sources. A am watching several of the class articles to ensure MEDRS (specially the stroop effect article, which I have been the main contributor) as is User:LovaFalk with all the other articles.. Bests. --Garrondo (talk) 08:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Anthony. I'm still expanding the list but could do with help analysing students. I'm about to get my tea. Could you look at some students in the list already. When I get back, if you are still around, I'll split the list into students to be looked at and a new list of ones just discovered -- in different sections so we don't get edit conflicts. But perhaps you are off to bed? Colin°Talk18:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's 6:00 am here and I've just done an all-nighter, so I'll call it a night for now. Sheesh.
Do you think that paper is worth taking on in person at the conference? If you're in Europe, it will probably cost the Foundation $1500. Personally, I think we should challenge those metrics in the strongest possible terms. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really not sure. I think the conference is for academics wanting to network and present their work. I've no academic career to advance to there isn't much for me or for Wikipedia. I agree the paper should be responded-to but we can do that on-wiki. Colin°Talk19:20, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm done for this evening. If you can pick some random students from the stable list and review all their edits this spring, that would be great. In order to save time, perhaps diffs aren't needed as one can easily see the contribs. Still worth wikilinking the article they edited but not the person who reverted. We are only going to be able to look at a small sample. From your summary, it should be possible to tell if the student added copyvio/plagiarism, if they were reverted (or you reverted them), if the edit wasn't worthwhile (i.e. ok but not in the right place or repeating what is already there, etc), if the edit made not sense, and of course, if you find any edits that were good and properly sourced.
I'll continue to try to expand the list of students though it is tedious work. I think it will help to show the size of the assault. And how ephemeral these accounts are. This, combined with the overall negative results, will hopefully be enough evidence to get the course banned. Colin°Talk22:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re Morpheme: "semantic unit" wasn't supposed to be jargon in my understanding. I took it as a transparent phrase, though admittedly (and irresolvably) imprecise: in whatever sense meaning might be decomposed, take an atomic, not-further-decomposible piece of meaning. I wrote that paragraph, but "semantic unit" didn't originally flow from my pen -- I just moved it, from its original place in the first sentence where "grammatical unit" stands now.
I don't think I'll be bothering with the article again, since theoretically morphemes are a godawful mess and there seems little consistency among what people take them to be (myself, I think they're probably a bad notion except as a sort of Platonic ideal morphological system that various languages approach to greater or lesser degrees). But if you yourself actually care about the topic, take this as a nudge to make an improvement and not just a deletion... 4pq1injbok (talk) 22:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know nothing about the topic. I'm trying to help my ex understand a "Teaching English as a Foreign Language" unit, and tearing out my remaining hairs over the vagueness of it all. Sorry about the deletion, and if that's as close as the topic gets to precision and clarity of meaning (which I'm now beginning to suspect), by all means restore it. I hadn't noticed you'd only just done it. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:28, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
.jpg)
