User talk:Anthonyhcole

Archives of this talk page: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

Absolutely ! I would be interested to be kept up to date ! Please. Thanks Anthere (talk) 08:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Lenthrand (talk) 18:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

http://arowf.org/

• Automated citations in Wikipedia: Citoid and the technology behind it
• Presenter: Sebastian Karcher (Syracuse University, Zotero)
• Date: February 29th, 2016
• Time: 20:00 UTC www.timeanddate.com
• Length: 1 hour
• Link to live YouTube stream [1]
• IRC channel for questions/discussion: #wikimedia-officev

Sounds pretty cool! I went to WMF and saw a tech talk on OOjs and Aaron Halfaker's machine learning project last night, and I'll probably watch this one too. II | (t - c) 05:51, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You went to New Montgomery Street, II? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've lived in SF for the past year and work about 10 minutes down the street near the Embarcadero. II | (t - c) 07:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ImperfectlyInformed: And they have events the public can attend there? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:46, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not very common. I went to a Wikipedia 15 event and this later event was mostly developers (seemed like many weren't even involved in MediaWiki), advertised on meetup as a tech event. See this and this. II | (t - c) 03:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, II. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Nupedia editorial guidelines May 2000.
• Wikipedia commentaries November 2001.
• The Epistemology of Wikipedia November 2001.
• Peer review and the Wikipedia process November 2001.
• Why Wikipedia Must Jettison Its Anti-Elitism December 2004.
• The Early History of Nupedia and Wikipedia: A Memoir - part 1 part 2 April 2005.

• New readership data: Some things we've been learning recently about how Wikipedia is read
• Presenter: Tilman Bayer
• Date: March 18th, 2016
• Time: 18:00 UTC www.timeanddate.com
• Link to live YouTube stream [2]
• IRC channel for questions/discussion: #wikimedia-office

• Summary:

  This talk will highlight various recent insights and new sources of data on how readers read Wikipedia, going beyond the familiar pageview numbers (that tell us which topics are popular and how overall traffic is developing, but not e.g. which parts of articles are being read). While we are still only beginning to understand some of these aspects, we now know more than a year or two ago. The presentation is centered around data analysis done by the Reading team, but will also include findings by other WMF teams and by external researchers.

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naHk_MrGp18

• http://fc.umn.edu/

Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology

http://www.wikicomment.ut.ee/article/?u=A3C6015

http://libgen.io/book/index.php?md5=41A766EE9752E757169A46C936C2EC17

[3]

Too bad the editors and readers wont have a real say in the selection of the ED. The employees have won this round and perhaps even have solidified their control over the Foundation. That's really no better. Thelmadatter (talk) 17:10, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The present interim situation is bad. The staff now have no chance of being held accountable - or receiving meaningful recognition for their achievements where due, for that matter. Is a popular interim ED going to make hard decisions such as closing down failing follies or sacking well-liked but inept programmers?

Actually, some staff have said Lila was standing in their way, slowing down progress. If that's so, then this interim period is at least better than bad leadership, and we might see them flourish. Erik Moeller mooted replacing the ED with a triumvirate. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:57, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the appointment of the new, permanent ED: the problem is not so much that the decision is in the hands of the board - that's sensible, in my opinion. We can propose candidates to them and I'm sure they'll listen. The real problem as I see it is the cluelessness and torpor of the board (though some individual trustees seem fine). We need a better board. We need to get rid of Jimmy. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very pleased to see you've put yourself forward for the board, Leigh. I've made a few suggested changes to your candidate statement here, and then reverted myself. If you like them, just restore my edit.

One question regarding your opening sentence, "Despite being an organization whose focus is education, we have yet to have anyone on the board who is an educational professional." Patricio Lorente is described as having "served in the National University of La Plata, first as Prosecretary of Administration and subsequently as General Prosecretary. In his current position, he manages the strategic planning and the everyday issues and conflicts of a large and restless community, including both academics and student organizations." Wouldn't that make him an educational professional? Maybe you could make it more specific what you mean by "educational professional". --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:55, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

do you know how to get my name to appear on the candidates' list? Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2016/Nominations I clicked edit to add it but got a bunch of wiki markup stuff I dont understand.Thelmadatter (talk) 00:11, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I expected to see it at the end, but Im in the middle.Thelmadatter (talk) 00:12, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You recently offered a statement in 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/Wikicology. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 22, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The message was sent using the case's MassMessage list. Unless you are a party, you may remove your name from the list to stop receiving notifications regarding the case.

Hi. I'd love to know if you've had any luck with that script yet? fredgandt 17:00, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see the section heading gets wiped in the process - I'll fix that in a while. Any other problems? Can you see this being helpful to you? I'm willing to make whatever effort is required to assist. fredgandt 10:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Fred! Yep It's definitely going to save me heaps of time. I just made a little response YouTube clip. it's redundant now, but I'll post it anyway because it's my first attempt at using Adobe Captivate. :o) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:40, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see it working (almost) fine. I didn't notice the headings disappear when I was testing - my bad.

I'm going to attempt to parse the HTML out to Wiki markup, so each table cell will contain only the HTML that's needed, but the normal brace and pipe table markup will be used for the table structure. It should be done this afternoon (UTC).

If there's anything I can do to assist further, please feel free to ask. I enjoy code and helping people, so for me it's the complete opposite of a bother  fredgandt 12:46, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, Fred. Thanks. When I think of something, I'll definitely ask you. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:58, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the section headings (and other section text outside the tables) being removed and added basic parsing to convert the table HTML to wiki-markup - it'll need to be carefully checked for errors to start with.

If you see any errors, let me know. fredgandt 18:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Fred. Much appreciated. I probably won't be using it now until the next review begins, which might be a few months. I'll get back to you if any issues arise. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I can send you a pdf of:

• Abdel-Salam OM (2014). "The paths to neurodegeneration in genetic Parkinson's disease". CNS Neurol Disord Drug Targets. 13 (9): 1485–512. PMID 25106632.

to complete your request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request#Medical journals. Please use Special:EmailUser to email me so that I can reply with the pdf as an attachment. Regards, Worldbruce (talk) 03:40, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Bruce. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Somehow you removed a comment I made, presumably inadvertently. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:34, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. Definitely inadvertent. This occasionally happens when I forget I'm reading an earlier version of a page and then jump in and edit that earlier version. I'll try to be more careful. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing your request for the "account creator" permission, I have enabled the flag on your account. Keep in mind these things:

• The account creator right removes the limit on the maximum number of new accounts that can be created in a 24-hour period.
• The account creator right is not a status symbol. If it remains unused, it is likely to be removed. Abuse of the account creator right will result in its removal by an administrator.

If you no longer require the right, let me know, or ask any other administrator. Drop a note if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of the account creator right. Happy editing! — xaosflux ^Talk 12:56, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added for email throttle limit override only, expire 20160620. For future mass notifications I suggest you explore using WT:MMS. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:56, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect. Thanks Xaosflux. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:19, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Judy Cassab, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Kirby. 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) 09:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding those categories to the Holly Ransom page. Happy editing! --My Pants Metal (talk) 16:35, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Marie Colvin.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 11:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was running an AWB script to add a named parameter to {{EB1911 poster}} (the problem with using an unamed parameter is the link to Wikisource breaks if the Wikipedia article name is changed. While it was unlikely that this particular article would have a name change, I wanted to change the {{EB1911 poster}} template to have to have an artilce name so that the template was less fragile.

The script I use is fairly comprehensive in fixing citations, but people think up complicated ways to bypass the restrictions imposed on them by citation templates so the regular expressions I use can on occasions make mistakes. Pain was the most complicated that I parsed. Although I made some hand changes from within AWB, as can be seen by the edit history I had to return to it half a dozen times or more before I had fixed most of the anomalies. I am glad that at least one person appreciated the work, because, as can be seen by the time stamps, it to took me several hours to make all the changes.

-- PBS (talk) 11:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I admire your persistence! And am very grateful for your help, PBS. I get satisfaction from adding to Wikipedia, and am pleased when people complement me for something I've done here, but nothing gives me more pleasure here than finding a stranger working on and improving an article I care about. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did I remember to tell you about m:Wikipedia Tools for Google Spreadsheets when I found it recently? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:05, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. I'll check it out. Thanks ! --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:09, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Would you like to join as an author in the project of having the article Hippocampus published in WikiJournal of Medicine? WikiJournal of Medicine is an open-access journal with no publication charges of any kind. Published articles will be given standard citation formats and DOI codes so that they can be cited by external works. Before publication, all articles undergo peer review, so after this is done I would like you to join the task of amending any issues that arise from it. I found you among the most active contributors to the article [4]. To be displayed among the main authors of the publication in WikiJournal of Medicine, you need to agree and sign the "Submission letter", and you should also write your real name. In any case, we'll attribute contributors by a link to the article history of Hippocampus.

Cheers,

Mikael Häggström (talk) 08:31, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Editor-in-chief, WikiJournal of Medicine

This article has now been peer reviewed by a neuroscientist, discovering several issues: Wikiversity:The Hippocampus#Peer review comments

I still hope you can help out in amending these issues. Mikael Häggström (talk) 14:33, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These issues have been amended now, but you are always welcome to have a second look at the article. Merry Christmas! Mikael Häggström (talk) 07:11, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anthonyhcole - I'd like to upload some copyrighted images from the graphic artist John Heartfield. The grandson of the artist may control the copyright. He has established a website to display images and archival material on the artist. http://www.johnheartfield.com/John-Heartfield-Exhibition/.

I've contacted him, and his only requirement seems to be that images placed on Wiki Commons include a link to his archive on the face of the image as they would appear in the article (rather than simply including the link at the Wiki Commons site).

Is this feasible? --36hourblock (talk) 18:39, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, 36hourblock. Images used on Wikipedia (or hosted on Wikimedia Commons) must be licensed CC-BY-SA or equivalent (see Creative Commons license#Types of licenses), and that license allows users to pretty much do what they like with the image, including remove a link, watermark or signature. But I'm no expert. The people at Wikimedia Commons Village Pump should be able to give you a definitive answer. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I emphatically agree with your removal of the reference to Jessica Drake. Unfortunately an anon editor [User:97.87.116.23] has repeatedly re-inserted it despite some gentle urging to take it to the article talk page. There is a discussion there and your input would be appreciated Gaas99 (talk) 03:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gaas99. I've commented on the article's talk page. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been closed for several years now, so I am sorry to say I have reverted your edit here. My apologies for that. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 15:16, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:17, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closed cases are meant to be archives of what previously transpired – you don't go back to, say, ANI Archive 204 or something (is that a thing?) and start fixing others' comments there. Sure, maybe yours was completely uncontroversial and simply fixing a dead link, but it's a very, very slippery slope and we do not need more drama than we already do, so we have absolutely no edits to closed cases. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 15:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Thanks for your vigilance and keep up the good work, Kevin. (Actually, I do fix dead links in archived AN/ANI discussions occasionally, just for the convenience of later readers.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:39, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

19:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

07:41, 22 December 2016‎ Anthonyhcole (talk | contribs)‎ . . (84,280 bytes) (+368)‎ . . (→‎No more thanks?: new section) updated since my last visit (rollback: 1 edit | undo | thank) [5]

JarrahTree 00:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was at Mundaring Weir last week, and found myself reading Goldfields Water Supply Scheme. Nice work, thank you, JarrahTree (and Moondyne). --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:00, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nah it needs heaps of work, just a stub... have a safe christmas JarrahTree 00:08, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it answered my questions. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas! Better not open the box! The Bishonen Conglomerate talk 11:55, 23 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Anthony, thanks for the Christmas greetings and the kind words. I hope you have a merry Christmas too. Graham87 01:11, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anthony. Merry Christmas to you.

I recall from some of your WO posts that you work on trying to peer-review Wikipedia medical articles. Is the effort still going on? I read some of the material here and I have some questions, comments and a few ideas. Can I email you to talk about it? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:21, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can talk about it here, if you like, Kingsindian, but you can email me if you'd prefer. The reviewers are being ridiculously tardy. We're nearly done but the wrap-up is taking forever. If they don't act soon, I'll summarise their review as it stands and take it to the article talk page, and let WikiProject Medicine have their way with it.

I'd love to hear your thoughts. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:29, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(The delay was my fault, actually, not the reviewers'. Sorry. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC))[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Hope all is well :-) And the year is looking bright. Still need to come visit you in Australia :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why, thank you DJ. Any time. And all the best to you too. (I'm mildly optimistic, on all levels, about 2017.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{{[[Template:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]]}} I just copied Trump bugging allegation into article space and now see the pre-existing Donald Trump wiretapping claim. I don't know how to speedy delete things, and would be obliged if someone could help me. Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very very easy - all you do is go to your pull down edit bar (but the depends that you have twinkle...) and go to the CSD part. If you dont have twinkle and want to use the manual typewriter style/morse code method, grab the aspirin and type CSD G7 - Author requests deletion... no further comment JarrahTree 14:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you JarrahTree. I'm going to sleep now, so will try Twinkle for the first time tomorrow. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

should have been exterminated by then - I have placed a CSD G7 request referring to your Help message - should be gone by then JarrahTree 15:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anthonyhcole. I've deleted the page as requested. In the future, if you are the sole author of an article and wish to have it deleted, simply add {{db-author}} to the top of the article, and this will place the article in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, where an administrator will see it. Please let me know if there is anything else that I can do to help. Mz7 (talk) 20:20, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mz7. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Anthonyhcole. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Swarm ♠ 03:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Swarm! --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide an edit summary for all edits. It greatly helps other editors understand the intent of your edit. I came across an edit of yours on my watchlist page but did not have any idea what you did. Thank you. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 12:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I usually do. I accidentally clicked "save" instead of "preview". --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It happens. Thanks... Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

what you are doing here is making things worse for Let99 here by focusing on my behavior; their specific issue now is facing and addressing their own behavior. I appreciate the kind things you said about me there and I hear the negative things, but you are "enabling" their resolute avoidance of the problem. In every comment they have made, they are refusing to deal with it. Whatever you can do to help them see and acknowledge would be great. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:06, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- I was planning on re-running Parkinson's disease as a TFA some time this month, but I see you're implementing some expert input. Should I delay it to another month, or do you think everything will be sorted out within a week or so? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:37, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you put it on hold please |Mike? I'm about half-way through incorporating the reviewers' recommendations. Once that's done, I'll take it back to the reviewers to make sure I've got that right. Can I ping you when that's done? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem. We're now rerunning a handful of old FAs every month; no reason not to wait till it's in the best shape it can be. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to start a small article on this, to be expanded later on by editors more familiar with doing medical articles. I've started about 400 articles on diverse subjects, so I think I know what I'm doing. I see the PDP article as something brief, describing what PDP is and talking about the new drug. Sources would include a couple of the journal articles mentioned on the Parkinson's disease talk page, plus two or three articles intended for the general public, from Michael J. Fox, etc. I'd love to start the article, but I wouldn't do it unless you and/other more involved editors didn't mind. Lou Sander (talk) 18:08, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If a talk page stalker can chime in: you might find it useful to familiarize yourself with WP:MEDRS if you aren't already. Looie496 (talk) 13:50, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've looked at it. I respect it as useful and well-thought-out and something that should be followed. But there's just too much there for me to absorb in order to write one little stub-like article. All I want to do is put PDP on the Wikipedia map. That's why I'm seeking the opinions of expert medical editors before starting anything. The experts are hugely busy with other medical articles, and I'm concerned that they won't very quickly get around to PDP. Lou Sander (talk) 14:46, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the main reason I mentioned it is that a central principle is to use only secondary medical sources (i.e., review articles in scientific journals) for medical information. Articles intended for the general public should only be used as sources for non-medical information such as public attitudes, social awareness, history, etc. Looie496 (talk) 19:02, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Anthonyhcole.JPG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

orphaned file, no foreseeable use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jon Kolbert (talk) 20:42, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Anthonyhcole preferences.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

orphaned file, no foreseeable use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jon Kolbert (talk) 20:42, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:03, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anthony,

I noticed your message on Barbara's talk page. I've sent a few emails regarding Visiting Scholars but perhaps it's not the best form of contact. Could you reach out when you can (email preferred, but on-wiki is fine, too). Thanks! --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ryan. I apologise for not responding to your queries. I've had a couple of conversations with Barbara now and I'm going to write up a summary of the failure I am presiding over and post it on-wiki soon. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No worries at all. To be clear, though I'd be happy to talk about any ways you think that I/we may be able to help with the BMJ project, the extent to which the Visiting Scholars arrangement is connected to the BMJ project (if at all) is up to you. The program is primarily about getting resources into the hands of experienced Wikipedians who can use them to improve content in a broad topic area. So if UNH resources are useful to you as an editor (with or without special projects), then it's successful. I've sent an email following up in a bit more detail. Thanks. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My ears were burning again, Ryan (Wiki Ed). Anyway this message is for Anthonycole. I just went through the BMJ review on the Parkinson's talk page and remain amazed at the willingness of these experts to give the content a thorough going over. Just to let you know that I am attempting to get up to speed on the process. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 23:32, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anthonyhcole. I was wondering if you had a minute to take a look at this. From what I can tell, the section is cited to a variety of email strings, legal documents, meeting minutes, and numerous documents hosted on a DropBox-like service called Mentor. Although I do not know what Qualcomm's interest is in the subject, I have a COI due to my affiliation with them. One of their employees brought it to my attention. CorporateM (Talk) 20:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any secondary sources to support that section so it doesn't appear to belong on Wikipedia per our policy, No original research. I'll think about it for a couple more hours and then delete it if no one beats me to it. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gone. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:23, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See the timeline here - [6] -- Fuzheado | Talk 00:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2006-10-09/Eloquence_interview

Discussions about WikiData's CC0 licence.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikidata#Is_CC_the_right_license_for_data.3F

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours/Office_hours_2012-12-18a

https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikidata//2012-April/thread.html#146

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-12-02/Op-ed

Hi Anthony H Cole. It's really great to make your acquaintance and I'm glad we are working on the article yaifo together. Sorry if I bumped into some of your edits, I think I might have reintroduced some bare refs which I promise I will fix when editing is complete. I tend to have a bit of a sloppy referencing system where I get the info up and fix and review all of the links at the end. I'll try to stay on top of this and be a bit neater this time. Thanks once again! Edaham (talk) 03:23, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I’m fine with everything you’re doing, Edaham. Carry on!

I’m a bit worried by the shortage of sources independent of Allen. Can’t wait to hear if he managed to make contact again. —Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:32, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - I'm also having trouble not making this an article about Allen. I will mention him but I want the info regarding him to be in a discrete (and comparatively brief) section on his journey with a mention in the lede. Although its perfectly "due" in terms of weight of sources to mention his pursuits all over the article, it wouldn't be very sensitive to the fact that it's an article about a people and their culture who largely exist independent of the activities of daring wanderers. I hope that Allen himself will eventually provide more information on specific details of the tribe, language, customs etc, which can help build an article. Edaham (talk) 03:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Anthonyhcole. I've seen you editing recently and you seem knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 11:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, You could help by reviewing new medical related articles. If you decide to join us, the New Page Patrol Browser can quickly sort new articles to display those that are of interest to you. Cheers. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 11:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Seth Rich.jpeg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 02:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed a serious problem on your talkpage: not enough kittens!

(((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 19:01, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, The Quixotic Potato. That's very kind of you. Life is actually a ball at the moment, and it's likely to just get better. Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:09, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

		The Happy Holiday Barnstar
		How about combining a Barnstar with a Christmas Card? That is why this message is appearing on your talk page. Simultaneously and at the same time, this barnstar is conferred upon you because during this past year you worked and contributed your time to improve the encyclopedia. You also have received far too little recognition for your contributions. In addition, this is a small attempt at spreading holiday cheer. I've appreciated all the things that you have done for me. The Best of Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ and Merry Christmas 00:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Thank you Barbara, and a merry Christmas to you. I really appreciate your work and support. —Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2018!

Hello Anthonyhcole, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2018. Happy editing, Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

THANK YOU James, and may 2018 see the fulfilment of all your hopes snd dreams. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:35, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if you need anything to help you in creating your op ed piece for the Signpost. After all, I AM the humour editor and carry a lot of clout.^[not] Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 23:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Barbara. I've decided to put the op ed on hold for now but thanks for the offer. Can I ring you sometime? 9:00 am Sunday your time maybe? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:14, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am exhausted, can you try at 10? Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 10:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make it 11:00. (If I don't nod off ). --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:56, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

{{LIKE}} Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony, are you still around? We long provided (and sought more) evidence that Wikipedia's medical content could be dangerous to deadly. Given that I know how unreliable Wikipedia's medical content is, it is disconcerting that my family would be directly affected, because I trusted certain articles depending on a check of the article history to verify medical editors had been through them recently. We still have a few editors attempting in vain to keep up with broad topics requiring expert and up to date editing, resulting in incomplete articles with dangerous or deadly biases. Every time I have a health situation in my own family, I again realize we have articles, indeed entire suites of articles, relying on published medical sources that are 10 to 20 years old, when more recent information is available. And while dealing with disease, I have little time nor inclination to engage the extended editing needed to correct these deficiencies. We have long known of these problems with Wikipedia medical content. Would it not be more expedient to engage the press with very specific examples? Have you tried that yet? If you are around, please email me.   SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandy. Sorry for the delay. I've been thinking, slowly. Wikipedia's featured article, Parkinsons disease, had some pretty egregious errors when I got topic experts to fact check it, but I don't remember if any were dangerous. The review is here if you want to take a look.

There are a number of possible approaches to the unreliability problem. I talked about starting a list of dangerous errors once, but never did, or if I did I've lost it. Scott might have considered this too.

I'm now thinking about starting Wikipedia:Wikiproject Reliable Wikipedia where volunteers and allies who care that Wikipedia is unreliable can collaborate on projects like the one you describe. I'll email you now. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:50, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am signing up for this immediately. I am also somewhat terrified that so many topics are 'wrong' and could be dangerous. There is much content missing, but I realize that this may not be the focus of this project. Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 10:49, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong and missing content pretty much sums up the reliability problem IMO. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:06, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just spoke to Scott on Twitter. He’s in. —Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC))[reply]

I have been thinking about this - the place to start is early intervention and prevention - i.e. screening. This is stuff that people will look up before they decide to see a doctor, and hence no doctor has had a chance to talk to them about treatment. Hence the start would be to update every medical condition for which there is some sort of screening or debate about whether to screen or not or how often. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Things like prescription-only medciations or surgical procedures are not such a priority as by the time people are considering these then they are (presumably) seeing a medical practitioner. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's brilliant Cas. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I saw some of Sandy's edits and it just got me thinking on the whole process. Anyway, we should move this to WT:MED I guess. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, for now, I'd like to keep away from wtmed. There's way too much denial about the extent, seriousness and urgency of the unreliability problem over there. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:50, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your instincts were right, but too late-- I already posted there. I am home for the day, but I have a one-hour drive each way, and will be doing it non-stop for the near future. That's the physical part-- never mind the emotional part. And dealing with a chronic condition, while trying to deal with Wikipedia intransigence about a long-standing problem, will be too much for me. I wish I had not posted to WT:MED, because already there is nothing but there but the same ole, same ole-- denial that we have a problem and are tying to hold it off with a finger in the dike. The argument should be strictly one of reliable sources-- of which there are many, which wikipedia ignored-- instead, the usual obfuscation. Just too tired today to deal with it. I may have more energy another day, as the amount that has to be dealt with each day varies.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:10, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't bear to look. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:50, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have a full plate. Our articles were grossly biased, in favor of one guideline only.   Please obtain and read the full text of the review I just posted at Wt:med. And then notice how many other guidelines said same over the years but were not even mentioned.   That review reflects the reality of my life now. And FFS, if anyone should have known better, I should have— what about the average yokel who did not look at the article history to see if one certain editor had been there. We cannot continue in a mode where one editor insists on trying to do a fast run-through to fix important articles ... this article needs attention of those who practice in the area. And it needs sustained attention. Meanwhile, I will be spending the next year in waiting rooms. Love to some of you, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going out for the day - it's early morning here. I'll email you when I get home. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:50, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Our articles are littered with failed verification content and admins refuse to enforce verifiability policy. This essay I created gives instructions on how to edit. QuackGuru (talk) 19:15, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree with every word of that, and recommend everyone read it.

Regarding bundling citations, QuackGuru, take a look at this one-sentence stub (hover your mouse curser over the footnote marker), and this  failed community "wish list" proposal. (We have to wait till next year now, or the one after that, or the one after that before WMF will even consider this, while they spend millions on flying people around the world.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:50, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think underlying each citation with tiny dots is not necessary. It would be best when a reader hovers over a citation for both the citation to fully appear as well as the citation in the reference section be highlighted. For sentences that require more than one citation it is best to place each citation only where they verify each claim for most cases. Some sentences would look odd if too many citations were placed throughout a sentence, especially if the sentence is short. In that case this feature would be a benefit to readers. It would also help for controversial content. I'm not sure which source supports "musician" for the one-sentence stub.

In the future I want to tackle the inaccuracy problem. The problem is policy is not being consistently enforced. Different ideas can help counter different problems. Enforcing Verifiability policy could help slow down failed verification content. A new noticeboard would accomplish that. QuackGuru (talk) 23:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Different ideas can help counter different problems." Yep. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:50, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Priority maintenance for this. I like Quackguru's idea too Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:57, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:38, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will put the personal part here, because there is no reason to put it on WT:MED-- the discussion there should be about reliable sources, and there are plenty.

Four years ago, when my husband's PSA doubled in one year, his GP ignored it-- specifically said, "Your PSA is normal" because it was 2.97. (Under some magical 3.0 cutoff, but FFS, only .03 under that imaginary cutoff, which means nothing if not taken in context of Digital Rectal Exam- DRE.) He did not mention that DRE showed a normal size prostate, no enlarged prostate, so there is no reason for a doubling of PSA in a short time. He did not suggest, you might want to keep an eye on that. He did not suggest, you might want to come back in six months to recheck that. He did not mention, you might want to consult a urologist about why your PSA doubled in one year, when you appear to have a normal-sized prostate. He did not say, your absolute PSA value may be OK for your age, but that it doubled in a short time is a concern that we should watch.

Why did he not suggest any of that? Because he believed the bullshit put out by the US Task Force for Preventative Services, and he completely discounted PSA values. And GPs in my part of the world are pressured to toe the bottom line on tests they order. In spite of the fact that reputable and knowledgeable urologists know quite well how to interpret a PSA along with DRE. (Why does our article separate PSA and DRE-- they have to be viewed together, in context.)

For Casliber, you might not realize the power the USTFPS has in the US, because of Medicare (our government medical program for elderly). The average age of a prostate cancer diagnosis is 66. In the US, you are eligible for Medicare at 65. One in 6 men get prostate cancer. You can see why the USTFPS would want to discourage PSA screening. With baby boomers turning 65, it is costing us a ton of money. I have spent a good amount of time in Urologists' offices in the last two months, and they all say exactly what this MEDRS March 2018 review says. They knew darn well that PSA screening saved lives, but that Medicare was trying to avoid paying for it. And in spite of the controversy, they knew when a second or closer look was warranted. My husband's GP did not afford him that chance. Even though you will find no respectable urologist who agrees with ignoring PSA screening.

Now that I am in the world of prostate cancer, I can understand the problem that led to the controversy. There are tons of very old men running around hysterical about a Gleason 6-- a cancer that will not affect them in their remaining lifetime. And prostate cancer is a cash cow, so there are tons of unscrupulous practitioners willing to treat them, even though they don't need treatment. But do we FAIL to screen those who DO need it, and can benefit from it, because of the practices of the unscrupulous or uninformed? My husband had prostate cancer four years ago that could have been treated four years ago.

Then, GP did not screen the next year AT ALL, even though my husband was in his office multiple times.

Then, the next year, when my husband's PSA AGAIN TRIPLED in two years, his GP still did not raise the alarm. Because he bought the party line. I am a woman, and know jack squat about prostate cancer. I went and read our articles, checked that Doc James had edited them, said ... ah ... not to worry, it is controversial. But fortunately, in our case, a dear friend is a nurse practitioner in urology, and she FORCED hubby to come in. At the point we got in to the urologist, he pulled up PSA history, and looked at us like we were nuts ... "this has been going on for a very long time!!!" And, the tumor is QUITE palpable on DRE. Queer, is it not, that the GP could not feel the tumor only a few months before? In other words, GP who discounts the importance of screening, does not know how to correctly do a DRE, and this asshole is a teaching physician who regularly has an intern or resident in tow.

So, while PSA screening affords the benefit of early detection, we did not have that. Next, I have to immerse myself and get on a fast learning curve, since we have real cancer. And only then, because of the extensive reading I have done, do I discover that our articles are HORRIBLE! Anyone who is defending them over on WT:MED ... well ... bah. Our article on PSA screening is an anti-screening poorly sourced essay.

You can compare prostate and breast cancer almost across the board in terms of how they affect men and women respectively, epidemiologically. But here is where that analysis breaks down. Men may not die of prostate cancer, but even when they don't, they typically end up with an array of side effects that considerable impacts quality of life. How many of the defenders on WT:MED want to go spend their golden years with urinary or fecal incontinence? It is not only about life expectancy and whether another condition will get you first-- it is also about how you spend your golden years.

That's our story. Cas is right that we should at least get our articles that have to do with screening up to snuff. If you have an asshole GP like ours, you should have enough info to realize that. But in this case, even WITH the benefit of correct screening, we had a GP who had been brainwashed, and we had me, who honestly checked Wikipedia and trusted because I could see which editors had been there, and I didn't look further. What an idiot I am. We lost the benefit of early detection, and went from what probably would have been easily treatable to a moderately aggressive cancer that had time to do its thing. And the whole while, there were and are reliable sources that could have been used in our articles, which gave preference to one source, the USTFPS, and ignored others. Bias and cherry picking of the dangerous kind.

We cannot continue a model of editing where one doctor runs through the leads of articles and doesn't repair the damage throughout. If we can't fix articles, we should gut them. When I tried to hatnote the articles to highlight the problems, that was removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:41, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The irony being that early detection saves millions but yeah. Again, this sounds awful and so tragically preventable. I am trying to scope out just how many aritcles might fall into this category...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:09, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tragically preventable. But occurred before my fifth wedding anniversary. Thank you to anyone who wakes up and tries to fix this problem. Seeing these articles fixed will make the pain a bit more bearable. [7] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sad and angry about this. I'm sending you hugs. And I will get back up and attack this unreliability thing until it's fixed. Forgive me if you don't see me tinkering with articles or saying a single word at WTMED. I don't have the heart for the latter and one more amateur fiddling with articles isn't the answer. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:32, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at Prostate-specific antigen. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even in the medical community, as you know, there remain misconceptions on the value of PSA testing. I omitted getting a PSA test and was metastatic when diagnosed. I do wikipedia on the surface, focusing instead on trying to close Guantanamo (see bit.ly slash 2017LeaseIsVoid for how I spend my time). I generally trust wikipedia, but to see the confusion over PSA screening reflected in the article, while not surprising, is quite bad. Thanks for your dedication. ( Martin | talk • contribs 14:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC))[reply]

I'm really sorry to hear that, Martin. I hope you pamper and indulge yourself shamelessly from here on. I would urge you, though, not to trust any medical information on Wikipedia. I like your Guantanamo argument. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:29, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am so sorry about your metastasis. It is quite shocking that Wikipedia editors are resisting corrections, when the consequences can be deadly. [8] I suspect if it were a women's issue, the gender cops would be all over it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:04, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Dealing with disputes Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 12:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Barbara! --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:53, 2 March 2018

(UTC)

I'm starting a new hobby within my hobby and it is to insert content and reference relevant health and medical content from the BMJ. Perhaps it will morph into something to illustrate the value of this effort. Hopefully, I will be able to sort my edit summaries to actually keep track of this. I applied for a BMJ library card through the WP Library but have not heard back from the WP librarians. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 14:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've started moving some drafts that I created offline into my draft space on WP. Don't panic! NONE of them are anything close to being finished. There are a few that are articles that already exist but with few to no refs. Nothing is ready. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 20:18, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC) .[reply]

Sandstein has closed the User:Barbara (WVS) ANI discussion with a topic ban worded "is topic-banned (WP:TBAN) from medical articles". Following discussion with Sandstein regarding the scope of that topic ban (User_talk:Sandstein#What_the_topic_ban_covers), it is felt that further wording is required. Therefore it is proposed that the wording of the topic ban is amended to read:

"By consensus of the community, Barbara (WVS) (talk · contribs), also editing as Bfpage (talk · contribs), is topic-banned (WP:TBAN) from health and medical topics, including anatomy and sexuality, broadly construed, and is also banned from interacting with Flyer22 (talk · contribs) (WP:IBAN)."

As you took place in the discussion, please visit Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal_for_clarification_of_scope_of_topic_ban to give your views. SilkTork (talk) 08:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About your note here; sorry that you feel that way. I appreciate you being clear, in any case. Jytdog (talk) 01:36, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I just surfed on to your page by complete happenstance, and for some reason your April 4 entry caught my eye.

How very sad. Perhaps you should make better choices.

wikipedia is an utterly strange place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.54.108 (talk) 01:40, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with the choices I made there. Very. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

There will be some changes to the way wikitext is parsed during the next few weeks. It will affect all namespaces. You can see a list of pages that may display incorrectly at Special:LintErrors. Since most of the easy problems have already been solved at the English Wikipedia, I am specifically contacting tech-savvy editors such as yourself with this one-time message, in the hope that you will be able to investigate the remaining high-priority pages during the next month.

There are approximately 10,000 articles (and many more non-article pages) with high-priority errors. The most important ones are the articles with misnested tags and table problems. Some of these involve templates, such as infoboxes, or the way the template is used in the article. In some cases, the "error" is a minor, unimportant difference in the visual appearance. In other cases, the results are undesirable. You can see a before-and-after comparison of any article by adding ?action=parsermigration-edit to the end of a link, like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Foss?action=parsermigration-edit (which shows a difference in how {{infobox ship}} is parsed).

If you are interested in helping with this project, please see Wikipedia:Linter. There are also some basic instructions (and links to even more information) at https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-ambassadors/2018-April/001836.html You can also leave a note at WT:Linter if you have questions.

Thank you for all the good things you do for the English Wikipedia. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]