User talk:Anthonyhcole/Archive2

What is the problem with controversial image use on Wikipedia?

Can I ask those who want a change in the way Wikipedia deals with controversial images to outline briefly what they believe the problem to be? Leave aside for the moment, if you can, any proposed solutions to the problem. Please don't engage in discussion in this section, and please don't add to this section if you see no problem. Feel free to edit, not strike, your comments as your thinking evolves, and keep it succinct.

Anthony

Placement of controversial images (of violence, nudity or religious subjects) can disaffect our readers. Sometimes controversial images are important to the readers' understanding of a topic (Depictions_of_Muhammad#Figurative_visual_depictions, Human anus, Human penis), sometimes not (Muhammad#Childhood_and_early_life, Pregnancy). The latter type disaffect our readers and add nothing important to their understanding, and this is a bad thing. Because many editors defend the presence of controversial images whose offensiveness far outweighs any didactic value, we end up engaging in literally interminable disputes which creates acrimony and wastes the precious time of competent editors.

Eraserhead1

Anthony explains it well, and there should be a line drawn between not censoring content and not being overly offensive. Its clear from this hypothetical suggestion and the lack of support for that - that basically everyone involved in the debate feels there is a line where they would consider an image offensive.

@Jayen466 The irony on sex is that we have a series of excellent diagrams to use. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Hans Adler

'Offensiveness' of an image is typically connected to, and often inextricably linked with, NPOV concerns. NOTCENSORED is being used by a large group of editors to declare valid NPOV concerns as tainted due to association with offensiveness. Their selective application of this trick is remarkably successful in pushing articles to a severely non-neutral state and keeping them that way. This was the brief version. Long version here. Hans Adler 13:00, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Jayen466

The problem is that a good proportion of our editors don't think that our imagery should reflect what is in reliable sources, but should systematically depart from them. NOTCENSORED is understood to mean that when it comes to images, our sources are all censored, and we are not. That flies in the face of all our fundamental content principles – WP:OR, WP:V, WP:NPOV – because if we assumed that all our sources are censored, and we are the only exception, we'd allow editors to engage in OR to tell the suppressed truth, whether verifiable or not. We don't do that. But when it comes to illustrations, we often end up with insensitive imagery that is not in line with how reliable sources illustrate the same topic, and which is then defended using NOTCENSORED. So instead of using the expertise of reliable sources when it comes to illustration, we end up with an autopsy image of a sawn-off skull in the German meningitis article that no introductory text or website aimed at a general audience would use, we end up with home-made images of sexual practices that no RS would use, in short, we end up with more offensive or just insensitive images than wise, or necessary, or mandated by WP:NPOV. And I suspect that it diminishes the number of visitors who actually read our articles. --JN466 14:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

To be absolutely clear: offence in itself should not be a criterion for inclusion or exclusion. The criterion should be practices in reliable sources, nothing else. However, complaints about offensiveness may be an indication that we are departing from standards in reliable sources, and should spark an investigation as to whether our illustrations are in line with them. --JN466 15:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Copied from my talk page, in response to Anthony's question why insensitive image usage would be a problem:

There are several ways of answering that. They include the following:

• It causes ill-will towards this project, for no good reason (i.e. for nothing that could be said to have been done in the service of WP:V and WP:NPOV), so it's self-harming.
• If our illustrations depart from standards in reliable sources, we don't look like a reliable source. That makes readers take the project less seriously as a reference source, reducing potential good-will and support that would otherwise be available.
• Imagery that is needlessly and incongruously offensive reduces the number of people willing to stay long enough on a page to read and contribute to it, limiting both the project's readership (and thus its educational impact), and the number of people willing to become contributors (whose numbers are declining).
• Insensitive imagery that is not justifiable from the point of view of our basic content policies causes avoidable and needless emotional distress in readers. --JN466 12:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Alessandra Napolitano

Wikipedia uses gruesome photographs, sexually explicit images, and nude photographs of minors in a way that violates WP:NPOV, if not WP:NOR, by adopting an extremely WP:FRINGE manner of presenting the subject matter that is rarely, if ever, used by WP:RS. This content policy violation has several deleterious consequences, including damaging Wikipedia's academic credibility, frivolously offending readers, and even temporarily causing access to Wikipedia from Great Britain to be blocked. Wikipedia is much too often used to facilitate social activism, presenting a David Hamiltonesque worldview that constantly pushes boundaries because it happens to coincide with the POVs of the offending editors. Since "censorship" refers to governmental or quasi-governmental action to suppress speech, such as the IWF blocking of Wikipedia, "Wikipedia is not censored" is a misuse of language. Exercising good editorial judgement and abiding by fundamental content policies, on a privately operated website, isn't censorship.
Responses to counterarguments:

1. What is "offensive" is subjective, and different for everyone. Since we can't avoid offending anyone, and adhering to the standards of some groups but not others would be POV, we should stop trying.
A: Wikipedia editing involves decisions concerning countless subjectivities. Since policies such as NPOV, NOR, and RS cannot be set fourth in mathematical precision, judgements are required. Moreover, "offensiveness" determinations aren't made abstractly, but in reference to the treatment of the relevant subject matter by reliable sources, like other decisions about article content.

2. When RS exclude certain types of images, there's no way to determine why they did this.
A: When RS exclude certain types of information from their text, it is often impossible to know why. Nonetheless, NPOV requires due respect for decisions by RS as to what information to convey.

3. RS are bound by commercial and social pressures to censor themselves. Wikipedia, standing head and shoulders above such malignant influences, cannot endorse censorship decisions by sources.
A: The view that RS are faulty, so Wikipedia should set things right is classic WP:ACTIVISM. This is no more acceptable for images than for text.

4. Deferring to image use judgements by RS for controversial content will result in intractable disputes founded upon which sources do or do not use what images.
A: No more so than NPOV's due weight provision causes similar disputes about text.

5. Since the tenor of images used to illustrate an article isn't part of its POV, deference to choices made by RS isn't required.
A: Then why all of the concern that "censoring" articles would violate NPOV?

6. Since WP:NOR allows original images, editor-produced photographs don't violate NOR.
A: While NOR also allows original text, in both cases the ideas presented are required to be citable to RS. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 18:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Kaldari

Speaking from my own experiences, there are 2 problems with controversial content on Wikipedia:

1. It is frequently used outside of relevant contexts.
   • girl, sun tanning, and ochre do not require nudity to properly illustrate them. Yet they all featured nude or semi-nude images of women at some point. These cases all violate the principal of least astonishment, which unfortunately is not a guideline on en.wiki. There is also debate about whether articles like pregnancy should lead with nude images, as it frequently causes complaints from people who were not expecting it. Sun-tanning, at one point, also lead with a topless photo.
2. We prefer to feature female nudity rather then male nudity.
   • Compare the infobox images for penis and vagina (Update: I've been informed this is due to bias in the focus of the articles themselves, not bias in image use)
   • http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shorts&oldid=428589952

In many cases, these issues could be resolved with common sense editorial decision making, but quite often this is extremely difficult due to people abusing WP:NOTCENSORED as a license to put nudity anywhere in Wikipedia. At one point there was even a serious discussion about whether to include images of women being raped in the rape article. Unfortunately, there are no guidelines on Wikipedia that can be used to counter absurd abuses of WP:NOTCENSORED. Kaldari (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Herostratus

I think a controversial/uncontroversial dichotomy is unsubtle. The reason why an image in controversial is important. Images of pornography and extreme sexual practices are controversial but are also some or all of these: 1) harmful to young persons, 2) inappropriate for a charity (and imperiling to our 501(c)(3) charity status), or 3) misogynist in intent or effect. We shouldn't have these. (See Bukkake (sex act), Gokkun, Scrotal inflation, Cock and ball torture (sexual practice) etc. for examples, and WP:HARDCORE for further exposition.) (As you can see I am not talking about simple nudity or non-extreme sexual practices, where appropriate.) These could all possibly all be called "prurient" I suppose.

Images that are controversial because they go against clerical, corporate, or governmental interests or enrage the superstitious are different. Images at Tank Man, Temple garment, Depictions of Muhammad, Bhopal disaster, etc. are inimical to some interests and therefore controversial. We should give short shrift to these interests in my opinion.

Unfortunately, grasping this subtlety is just simply beyond the capabilities of almost all editors here. It requires a grounding in moral philosophy and an understanding of what freedom of the press is for that is just way beyond the capacities of most people, who frankly cannot engage on this subject beyond a "two legs bad" bleating that all moral choices are relative and culturally dependent and therefore (supposedly) invalid.

"Controversial" is however an easy concept to grasp. Therefore, for purely political reasons, I would support the redaction of "controversial" images if this is the only way to get rid of the porn and extreme sexual imagery. Herostratus (talk) 03:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2

An encyclopedia (or any dedicated tertiary source) has a responsibility to avoid advocating for any given side in a real world controversy. This is why Wikipedia has policies like NPOV, that ask us to present all sides of a dispute in some reasonable balance.

Controversial images (any controversial material, actually, but images are a special case because of the high salience of visual material - we are visually-oriented creatures) can be used to advocate for one side of a controversy in a way that cannot be ameliorated or balanced. For example, there is a real-world controversy over the question of whether abortion is a form of murder: text discussion of this controversy allows different opinions to be presented in balance to their prominence by bringing in countervailing sources, but a single image of an aborted fetus creates an implicit argument that abortion is murder that cannot be balanced - there are no 'countervailing images' of similar salience that can be used to make an implicit argument that abortion is not murder. Such an image efficiently violates NPOV and places Wikipedia in the role of advocating for a particular viewpoint.

It is important to remember that editors on any given article - and particularly on controversial topics - are neither typical of the general population nor neutral. Editors are a self-selecting group who edit articles because they have a particular attitude (pro or con) about a given topic, and that attitude can lead to image choices which reflect the editors' particular viewpoints but contradict the mores, standards, or accepted norms of our anticipated readership. This exacerbates real-world conflicts by making Wikipedia a party to them, and should be avoided. --Ludwigs2 17:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

SDY

The only real issue I see with it is the assumptions of bad faith that instantly lash out whenever someone tries to remove an image that is potentially controversial. It becomes a question of free speech rather than a question of writing a good encyclopedia. WP:NOTCENSORED should be balanced with a WP:NOTFREESPEECH - we're writing an encyclopedia, not a political manifesto, and shocking images of dubious value are bad content and should be axed, not preserved. SDY (talk) 14:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

New WikiProject to resolve image use problems

Since efforts to reform "Not Censored" for conformity to NPOV seem to have faltered, I've started Wikipedia:WikiProject Image Neutrality to organize efforts to improve individual articles. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 23:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Food for thought: WP:Miscellany for deletion/Wikiproject English. Also, are you familiar with WP:WikiProject Council/Proposals? Hans Adler 00:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The counterargument to that would be WP:ARS. {{Rescue}} is not considered illicit canvassing just because editors who visit the AFD after seeing an article thus categorized are likely to have a particular POV on the inclusionism/deletionism scale. No unfair advantage would be gained through use of the wikiproject, since any editor in good standing is free to form Wikipedia:WikiProject Not Censored or whatever. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 01:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Or we could meet informally on each others' talk pages like this and discuss the issue. Once everybody who wants to has chimed in above, we may be able to find a form of words that comprehensively and concisely expresses the harm being done to the project by present controversial image use practice. Then we can move on to compose a similar statement of possible remedies and their advantages and disadvantages. Only then will we be in a position to put something rigorous and persuasive to a widely advertised RfC. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Putting an amendment to WP:NOT to a site-wide vote, with formal suffrage requirements, a pre-set percentage support requirement for implementation, and notices on every non-article page, might produce an outcome better representative of the community than the limited RFC we've already had. A vote would be the only workable format for a site-wide decision, since a discussion with thousands of participants would be more trouble than a Florida election. However, to do that, protected edits to mediawiki pages would need to be made. Any sysop worth their bit would almost always want to see some sort of discussion and consensus before posting site-wide notices. Therefore, a poll could be prevented by... the same editors who want to keep "not censored" just the way it is. Since they already have the outcome they want, namely, no consensus to do anything and a default to the status quo, why should they support rolling the dice? It might take an arbcom case or motion to actually start a vote - while arbcom won't change the policy, they might prescribe a conclusive process for a community decision. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 02:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe this is an issue that can and should be dealt with by the community via a widely advertised RfC. We don't need arbcom's permission or directions. Special arrangements may be necessary for the vote, or not. A simple RfC !vote may do the trick. We can discuss that. But one thing I am certain of is, regardless of the structure of the debate, the outcome will depend on the persuasiveness of the opening argument in support of change. The first task of the opening argument is to demonstrate a problem; the second is to sell the solution. The purpose of the above section is to help with the first. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

You mean you want them to overturn several years worth of consistent rejections of proposals at multiple venues on the off-chance that the horse you've been flogging all this time might not actually be dead, if only you could have a process that you designed to give the best chance of getting your own way? Good luck. Thryduulf (talk) 03:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

No previous proposal in this area has ever been put to a site-wide vote. Instead, they have been discussed by extremely unrepresentative subsets of editors. Given that "not censored" has been disputed by a number of editors for years, and that the limited RFC has yielded no clear consensus either way, a site-wide poll would present an excellent opportunity to conclusively resolve this issue. Or, the disputes about "not censored" can continue indefinitely. This is not because the editors presently disputing the policy will never desist, but because new editors will pick up the torch. So long as Wikipedia's choice of images in sexology articles makes us look more like Hustler than The Journal of Sex Research, the "not censored" dispute cannot be ended. Neither AN/I nor arbcom have it within their power to restrain editors not yet involved in conflict from entering it. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 03:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

No proposals about any policy have been put to a site-wide vote in the nearly 7 years I've been here afair. There have been RFCs and the like advertised aplenty, and the result determined based on the consensus of the editors who commented. In the case of proposals about censorship, NOTCENSORED, offensive images, protecting children from "harmful" images, etc, etc, there have been dozens of such proposals and on no occasion has there been a consensus to change or weaken the current policy. You will not persuade anyone to institute a new process until you can demonstrate that there is a need for it. Based on the consistent rejections and no obvious lack of input, I don't see anyone being convinced your side hasn't been heard. Thryduulf (talk) 16:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Previous proposals have been based on subjective notions of decency and unguided editorial discretion: if a sufficiently large percentage of editors found an image to be objectionable, it would have to go. By contrast, the current debate is about NPOV: whether we are willing to base our content upon reliable sources. The current "not censored" policy is being abused to declare most RS "censored", such that their image use practices cannot provide any guidance for a "not censored" project. Thus, Wikipedia runs far afield from RS, cutting its own, original research WP:ACTIVIST path while bearing the "not censored" torch. The complete unwillingness of the RS listed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/2008 IWF action/Media coverage to reprint the offending album cover, despite that being the subject of their articles, provides a compelling disendorsement of our decision to include the image. WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:RS, and so on are directly opposed to dealing in content which no reliable source will touch, irrespective of whether the RS may be denigrated with accusations of censorship, pandering to right wing prudish religious bigot extremists, or similar vitriol. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 23:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

"No unfair advantage would be gained through use of the wikiproject, since any editor in good standing is free to form Wikipedia:WikiProject Not Censored or whatever." - Umm, no. Wikiprojects exist to foster collaboration, not to push one side of a POV. Suggesting that another project be created to push the other side is not a valid solution. Both would be divisive drama pits, and neither deserve to exist. As to the "site-wide vote", that seems like yet another attempt at forum shopping to me. Consistent discussion has consistently found consensus supports the current interpretation, but some people simply cannot accept that their POV is not supported by the community, and the result is that they simply try to argue their case over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again in the hopes that they will finally wear out their opposition, and can then pretend their viewpoint is the preferred. The amount of productive editing time people are forced to waste defending this project against editors unwilling to drop the stick does this project far, far more damage than does the existence of an naked breast or a religion's prophet. Resolute 17:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Why is the number of active new editors declining?

I noticed you posted that on yout user page. The reason why "the number of active new editors declining?" is declining is because most volunteer endeavers don't have so much animosity, rudeness obnoxiousness and petty egotism. There is also an incredible amount of asinine stupidity and no sense of social responsibility. The Suicide article is prime example; something that can have a real-world effect on the lives of the people reading it, who more than likely are suicidal and it was full of stupid irrelevant crap. I re-wrote most of it but there is still stupidity on there like "Some species of termites have soldiers that explode, covering their enemies with sticky goo". A person who may be about to die doesn't give a shit about termites and "sticky-goo". I can't delete it and a few other things though because somebody doesn't have the common-sense to see it doesn't belong there and puts it back.

The nonsense over the picture in the infobox, which placed out of context looks like a tacky cartoon is another example, all the time effort and aggravation and the merry go round let me repeat myself three thousand times exchanges all just so a different tacky cartoon goes up there. September 11 attacks is another prme example, it looks bad and is written poorly, but if somebody with aliitle bit of competance wants to improve it they are "rebuffed" in a rude fashion by the very people who made it look like carp in the first place.

There is too much silliness. Can you imagine a professional like a neurologist saying things like "well that sounds like a case of WP:MEAT to me" also WP:ONEWAY and WP:GREEN EGGS AND HAM" and if you are not WP:CIVIL and continue this WP:BATTLE I will report you to A/NI". User:I lost my mojo and don't know where to find it12:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no sense of altruism. Wikipedia can be an incredible resource to improve the human condition and the opportunity is being squandered. 7mike5000 (talk) 12:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Well. I think it's already improving the human condition but it could and will do a lot better. We badly need more rational experts editing medical articles, but I don't see that happening until editing becomes pleasanter. Do we seriously expect educated sensible newbies to give up their time while we swamp them with argot, templates and insults on a text editor full of ''Some'' [[Human|people]] say <blockquote> they want to edit, and they're getting rebuffed.<ref name = jt104>{{cite web | url = http://bambuser.com/channel/pigsonthewing/broadcast/2140682 | Gardner S | date = 2011.11.19 }} </ref> </blockquote> ~~~~ ?

Speaking of Suicide, should we remove that cartoon? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I think people need to get off the ego-train, stuff like "This user made 3,674,987 edits" is silly and caters to childish egotism. I also think there are too many people that are creatively and intellectually challenged but don't seem to realize it. As far as the cartoon on the Suicide article, perfe they have a particular attitudnce. Oh and BTW this edit to your talk page ups my edit count to 3,647,329 edits. Boy I r smart. 7mike5000 (talk) 01:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Muhammad images Arbitration request

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Muhammad Images and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

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

Thanks, -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent my point of view

I have never said that offensiveness should not be taken into account. I've said that offensiveness based on a religious perspective cannot be taken into account. Whether you agree with me or not, certainly you can see that those are different statements.—Kww(talk) 16:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I was relying on my flawed memory. Do you mind if I go back straight away and simply correct it, rather than strikethrough? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Feel free.—Kww(talk) 16:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Done. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Office Hours

Hey Anthonyhcole/Archive2; another Article Feedback Tool office hours session! This is going to be immediately after we start trialing the software publicly, so it's a pretty important one. If any of you want to attend, it will be held in #wikimedia-office on Friday 16th December at 19:00 UTC. As always, if you can't attend, drop me a line and I'm happy to link you to the logs when we're done. Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

As promised, office hours logs! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Civility

(Moving the discussion here, as it was getting off-topic). You called me "rude and patronising" which is clearly uncivil. "Not this shit again" seemed to be an appropriate response to yet another attempt by a self-confessed 'advocate' who admitted wanting to 'get around' wikipedia rules and 'control the page'. It's a just a common internet meme (which wikipedia won't let me post the link to) that seems to summarise the situation. I'm sorry if it offended you, but the tone seemed appropriate and it was a case of WP:DUCK. --sciencewatcher (talk) 19:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll reread that discussion tomorrow and respond then. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I've removed a couple of my rants from the talk page, which I realise weren't helping the situation. --sciencewatcher (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I would have preferred you to strike them as, without them on the page, it makes my response seem churlish or groundless. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it is better to just remove them, and I'd recommend removing/editing your responses as well, but it's up to you. --sciencewatcher (talk) 01:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Fine. So now we're left with two instances of you accusing me of being uncivil, while you're looking like a choir boy. Sheesh. I'm not sensing a lot of goodwill here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot about that. I've struck them out. Let me know if I've missed any. --sciencewatcher (talk) 14:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

CFS suggestion

That's great wording you found from the Major Depressive Disorder page. Thanks for finding that. I'll shut up on the CFS talk page, cuz I'm starting to inadvertently dominate that conversation a little bit :), but wording like that sounds like a good way to say what I, at least, think needs to be said without confounding it with what the current wording and sources seem to be saying. Hopefully others will agree, but I'll sit on my hands for a bit before chiming in again. – RobinHood70 ^talk 04:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I've just suggested "Proposed causes include multiple psychological and physiological factors." Let's see what rational objections there are to that. Please don't shut up there. Your measured and level headed contributions are very valuable. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, that was poorly worded. I just meant for tonight, really. Right now, in Break 2, I think every other response is me. People will start to think I just sit here refreshing my Watchlist all the time or something! (Okay, I'm pretty close to doing exactly that, but I don't want people to think that! <g>) – RobinHood70 ^talk 05:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. Sweet dreams. (It's lunchtime here). --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

resource request

Hi Anthonyhcole,

I've uploaded one of the articles on Chronic Fatigue Syndrome that you requested at the resource exchange. You can find a link to the article at that page. GabrielF (talk) 03:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Got it. Thank you for taking the trouble. Much appreciated. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Muhammad images arbitration case

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 11, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 14:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Anthonyhcole. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— MaenK.A._Talk 13:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Evidence for Muhammad images

Hi Anthony. In your preliminary statement at the Muhammad imges case, you said you are looking for the committee to suggest a new approach to the content and policy sides of the dispute. Although the arbitrators do not rule on content, the members of ArbCom have in the past (and probably will in this case) used our perspective as seasoned, experienced editors to guide the parties towards a community-based resolution. I understand that this does not require the parties to submit much evidence from past discussions, but there potentially are additional behavioural issues in this dispute that we must also resolve. Do you intend to submit evidence? I am interested in reading the view of all the parties as to which editors (if any) have had a negative influence on past discussions, and your earlier involvement in the dispute has been sensible. If you would prefer to respond in private, feel free to e-mail me instead. AGK [•] 21:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for following up, AGK. I do intend contributing to the ArbCom effort but I've been unwell for the last week. I'm coming good now and will add a statement to a couple of the pages soon but don't intend involving myself in the discussions. I have been worried that leaving my contribution this late may affect its impact but think it's better that I wait until I can give the issues my full attention. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:50, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I've made a few comments at the workshop. One [1] I had to reiterate three times in response to the same statement in three locations by ASCIIn2Bme. I wonder if you or another arb could adjudicate this point. It's pretty straightforward, I think. Only one of us can be right and it's pretty fundamental to a correct understanding of the Foundation resolution. I believe ASCIIn2Bme simply hasn't read the working group report or has misunderstood it ... or I have. I think the working group report pretty explicitly contradicts what he's been asserting in those three posts. It would be better to clear this up sooner rather than later though, if possible. (I've taken it to the workshop talk page, we should be able to work it out there.)

By the way, thanks for taking on this massive task. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

UT:JW

I kinda thought that was what you were getting at, couldn't be sure, so just added the note in case you meant something in the similar-titled thread. All good with me + glad I don't have to parse more. :) Franamax (talk) 03:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Phew. I never mess with other people's talk, but it seemed the path of least confusion. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

You appear to have misinterpreted what I said. Unless you point to some specific diff where I said that, please retract. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Replied there. [2] --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

no contest

re: [3]: You're right, I'm still feeling bitchy and sore-headed and should really just keep my mouth closed for a while longer. but damn these people irritate me! harrumph. --Ludwigs2 04:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool - notes and office hours

Hey guys! Another month, another newsletter.

First off - the first bits of AFT5 are now deployed. As of early last week, the various different designs are deployed on 0.1 percent of articles, for a certain "bucket" of randomly-assigned readers. With the data flooding in from these, we were able to generate a big pool of comments for editors to categorise as "useful" or "not useful". This information will be used to work out which form is the "best" form, producing the most useful feedback and the least junk. Hopefully we'll have the data for you by the end of the week; I can't thank the editors who volunteered to hand-code enough; we wouldn't be where we are now without you.

All this useful information means we can move on to finalising the tool, and so we're holding an extra-important office hours session on Friday, 6th January at 19:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office. If you can't make it, drop me a note and I'll be happy to provide logs so you can see what went on - if you can make it, but will turn up late, bear in mind that I'll be hanging around until 23:00 UTC to deal with latecomers :).

Things we'll be discussing include:

• The design of the feedback page, which will display all the feedback gathered through whichever form comes out on top.
• An expansion of the pool of articles which have AFT5 displayed, from 0.1 percent to 0.3 (which is what we were going to do initially anyway)
• An upcoming Request for Comment that will cover (amongst other things) who can access various features in the tool, such as the "hide" button.

If you can't make it to the session, all this stuff will be displayed on the talkpage soon after, so no worries ;). Hope to see you all there! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 04:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Workshop change

Please have another go without removing content. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Oops. Freudian slip. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Chinese martial arts

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Chinese martial arts. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool - things to do

Hey guys! A couple of highly important things to do over the next few weeks:

• We've opened a Request for Comment on several of the most important aspects of the tool, including who should be able to hide inappropriate comments. It will remain open until 20 January; I encourage everyone with an interest to take part :).
• A second round of feedback categorisation will take place in a few weeks, so we can properly evaluate which design works the best and keeps all the junk out :P. All volunteers are welcome and desired; there may be foundation swag in it for you!

Regards, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Starlings

LOL![4] From one starling to another, thanks. :) --Elonka 18:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Fun to look at WP:WQA

Before making a strong defence of an editor who might have a history of conflicts worth reading. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. I don't understand your meaning. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

In which case - it is my fault. I had thought you defended an editor who had been accused of "bickering" when the WQA reports over a long period of time rather seem to support a finding of "bickering" to say the least. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

What you get when you challenge poor rhetoric looks like bickering. I support him. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

L2 talk page

I was quite surprised to see you making that comment, as it seemed quite out of character based on every other comment I've seen from you here (admittedly, I don't exactly follow you around). I'm glad to see you confirm how far away from your usual standard of behaviour that was.

I believe you are thinking of revision deletion, which I did consider. I'm personally pretty conservative with revdel (perhaps too much so) and I'm not against established editors wearing their mistakes, so I would decline the option, without prejudice to any other admin who might feel differently - though Elonka also had the option to suppress the edit and did not. You do have the option to revise your post by replacing the portions you regret with <redacted> and making an appropriate notation, leaving all else intact. This leaves the page (and your) history intact, but lets you fully withdraw your statements from immediate view and search-engine crawling. Regards! Franamax (talk) 19:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I <redacted>. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

RfC on principle of least astonishment

I've listed quotes from almost every respondent to this RfC here expressing or displaying confusion and misunderstanding about fundamental aspects of the resolution: whether it applies to this project, whether it's optional, the meaning of terms, etc, etc. It is much too early for this RfC. Running it now, with this level of ignorance and uncertainty surrounding it is poisoning any possibility of a thoughtful and informed result.

I'm not familiar enough with the protocols around RfCs, but if you can do anything to close this thing I'd appreciate it if you would. If you're the closer, please make it clear in the closing statement that most (all?) of the respondents either expressed or displayed confusion and misunderstanding about the nature of the resolution. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Anthonyhcole - I left a motion to close note there. My motion was objected to, so I will leave it for an uninvolved editor to close - Regards to you. Youreallycan 19:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool

Hey guys; apologies for the belated nature of this notification; as you can probably imagine, the whole blackout thing kinda messed with our timetables :P. Just a quick reminder that we've got an office hours session tomorrow at 19:00 in #wikimedia-office, where we'll be discussing the results of the hand-coding and previewing some new changes. Hope to see you there :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments on Muhammad

Another point I wanted to make, I haven't personally noticed much incivility (beyond a little given it is a stressful process), but if someone has been repeatedly uncivil then I suggest gathering some diffs and emailing them to the committee, maybe they missed it.

Personally I think incivility is extremely serious, so I'd be happy to raise issues along those lines if I saw anything particularly bad. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words, Anthony

Too kind... as I was trying to say, these discussions attract exaggeration. But I found that whole thread one of the more interesting and encouraging. And I see you've been troubled by some misunderstandings yourself. Cheers! (literally), MistyMorn (talk) 21:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

:) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

office hours

Another notification, guys; Article Feedback Tool office hours on Friday at 19:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office :). If you can't attend, drop me a note and I'll send you the logs when we're done. We're also thinking of moving it to thursday at a later time: say, 22:00 UTC. Speak up if that'd appeal more :) Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Uhh

How exactly did you revert me here? You didn't undo any of my unlinking; and what was "Didn't reduce overlinking" supposed to mean? — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 10:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Jeraphine Gryphon. I think your edit summary is mistaken, Anthonyhcole. Pine^talk 10:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is. I thought I was looking at you adding links, Jeraphine Gryphon. Being half asleep at the time might have something to do with it. I scanned your history and was thinking, "this behaviour is so out of character for this editor." Please accept my apologies for the error. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

DID lead change

Hi Anthony, note this change and the edit summary. I hadn't tweaked to your idea that the specifics of the dispute shouldn't be in the lead - and on reflection I agree with your assessment - but I do think the degree of acrimony is worth noting. Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

That's good. I responded here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

My response is a resounding "meh" and a pointer to WP:SAY

The term "alter" is generally more accepted I believe (more so than "multiple personality" as I've seen criticisms that we aren't seeing "personalities" from both the pro- and con- camps, but then again the DSM-IV-TR kinda switches between them [5]) and I like the explicit use of the word "iatrogenic". But the "iatrogenic" model has been replaced with "sociocognitive" in some circles.

One thing I would greatly prefer would be to remove "some" as I made a big stink about it here. Were I my druthers and the the boss of wikipedia I'd revert to the old version, but see what you think after reading that section. Avoid the rest of the talk page, it'll make you cry. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

And I raise you a "meh" and a "wooaaah. holy fuck. Eeeergh. Oh god. No." That talk page. I just don't think I have the stamina for that. I'll look back again later. Oooeerrgh. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The central issue can be summarized as this:

Me: We should follow the P&G.

Everyone else: NOOOOO!!! NOOOOOOOOO!!!!! NNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

Me: What?

And you thought acupuncture was acrimonious... WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi AHC, note this section; FF is the one editor who discloses an obvious potential COI in DID (a dissociative disorder is mentioned on his/her user page) and is both civil and appears to grok wikipedia. If you are going to revert on the main page, could I beg the favour that you engage, on the talk page, about this item at least? The rest is a complete gong show and I stridently urge you to stay away, but I think extra courtesy is due to FF for being such a standout on this page. Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if the timestamps prove it, but I wrote this before reading your above sage advice. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

No worries, in the past you've always been good about this sort of thing and I didn't expect this to be an exception. I just didn't want this one to fall through the cracks. Oh, did I also mention I'm a compulsive micro-manager? I'm a compulsive micro-manager.

That mushroom cloud gif is awesome but I think it's messing up my cursor. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not doing anything to mine. Should I remove it? It's pretty spectacular. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Naw, my cursor's just flickering more, and it's not doing it anymore. I say replace your user page with a 1000px version. For the lulz. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Totally worth it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Weeee! --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the courtesy extended by both of you. Will keep it on the DID talk page now but did want to mention it personally on here. Forgotten Faces (talk) 16:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. It's great to have you here. I hope you like it and decide to stick around. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

maybe it's time to organize

Please have a look at this and let me know (there) what you think. --Ludwigs2 22:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images closed

An arbitration case regarding Muhammad images has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. The community is asked to hold a discussion that will establish a definitive consensus on what images will be included in the article Muhammad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and on where the images will be placed within the article. As with all decisions about content, the policies on verifiability and the neutral point of view must be the most important considerations. The editors who choose to participate in this discussion are asked to form an opinion with an open mind, and to explain their decision clearly. Any editor who disrupts this discussion may be banned from the affected pages by any uninvolved administrator, under the discretionary sanctions authorised in this decision. The decision reached in this discussion will be appended to this case within two months from the close of the case.
2. Ludwigs2 is prohibited from contributing to any discussion concerning Muhammad.
3. Ludwigs2 is banned from the English Wikipedia for one year.
4. Tarc is admonished to behave with appropriate professionalism in his contributions to discussions about disputed article content.
5. FormerIP is admonished to behave with appropriate professionalism in his contributions to discussions about disputed article content.
6. Hans Adler is reminded to engage in discussions about disputed article content with an appropriate degree of civility.
7. Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to Muhammad, broadly interpreted.
8. The participants in the dispute about depictions of Muhammad are reminded that editors who engage extensively in an intractable dispute can become frustrated, and that it is important to be aware that as editors we are limited in our ability to contribute constructively to a deadlocked disagreement. Our exasperation with a dispute can make us unprofessional or unreceptive to compromise. We therefore encourage the disputants of this case to consider if their participation in the coming community discussion of depictions of Muhammad would be useful, and we remind them that if they disrupt the community discussion they may be banned from the discussion or otherwise sanctioned under the discretionary sanctions provision of this case.

Mlpearc (powwow) 16:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

For the Arbitration Committee

Fae's RfC

Hey Anthony, you made the following edit [6]. As I read the edit summary and the associated link, I think you are withdrawing support for the view, but you left it count. Are you still supporting the call for a recall just with less harsh language or are you withdrawing support from the view? If the former, then no problem. If the later, you might want to indent your struck comment, thus taking you out of the count.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 17:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks. I've clarified. [7] --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

No problems - glad I could help. Let me know if you need anything else. GiantSnowman 14:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

--Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

ANI - 3rr

{{3RR|wp:ani}} - Youreallycan 16:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

No worries - its not worth a block - such as that is the main problem with additional policing of comments - different people have different interpretations of what is worth removing . I also think that if increased policing of comment happens at WP:ANI that, the same standard should be applied to all talkpages. Youreallycan 16:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I just said to Floquenbeam at Talk:AN "I understand there will be occasions where things may/may not cross the line of civility, and on those occasions it's probably best to let such comments go. But no one with an understanding of the term would mistake "that is the bullshit I was talking about", in reference to another's comment, for civil behaviour. Tarc was uncivil. The community needs to decide whether it wants that to be normal behaviour at ANI.

And I agree with your last comment. The place to start, though, is the admin noticeboards. Lead by example. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

If a more friendly, and honest place can be encouraged - I support that one hundred percent, yes, leading by example is good advice for us all - best regards and good luck - Youreallycan 17:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I think the place is ready. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Anthony, I really appreciate what you're trying to do (and I support it) but I disagree with you that the place is ready yet. And I don't think "bullshit" was the right target to choose for the first outing of the new civility code in any case. IMO we need to wait until (a) we have better consensus on redacting incivility and then (b) wait for a really obvious and egregious case to kick off with. You can only lead by example if people are willing to follow and they're not, on this, yet. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 17:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It's policy, Kim. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a note to clarify - I meant lead by example of not attacking anyone and being more appreciative of others, and not, leading by example by deleting others posts. Youreallycan 17:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Youreallycan, I realise redacting the comments was inappropriate and I won't be doing it again. :) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Fae and WR again

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Fæ#For_the_record has started to draw WR links and a lot of discussion about them. I don't feel as responsible this time, and I think my comments are meant to disprove false allegations about Fae, but as my judgment on this issue has been deficient before... probably best if you had a look of your own to see what you feel is appropriate under policy. Wnt (talk) 18:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Wnt, it's morning here and I'm moving house all day so won't be able to look for a few hours. I am so disappointed by the way this thing is going. Wikipedia has a lot more growing up to do. If I redact anything more from that page I'll be blocked but if when I get back on line there are links to that toxic WR thread, I'll be stripping those and any other such abuse out of the page. Catch you later. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I've thought about this and realise I'm out of my depth there. I don't have the time for the reading necessary to fully grasp what's going on. I hope some mature admins are watching; and, however it plays out, we've got some serious lessons to learn from this experience. May I suggest you back off? Fae should be addressing the questions of his fitness to edit BLPs and his recall. Your constant engagement with his critics has, in my opinion, acted as a shield for Fae (when, without you there, he might have had to speak up) and has prolonged the ordeal which has led to the current ugly mess. I think it's time for everybody to stop speaking for him. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Rename at Campaign for "santorum" neologism

Hello, since you recently participated in an RfC at Campaign for "santorum" neologism, I thought you might be interested in this proposal for renaming the article, or perhaps another of the rename proposals on the page. Best, B^e——C_ritical 22:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of new editors

It's pretty clear to me that one of the most vociferous accusers of homophobia is not a new editor [8]. I don't know if he is a sockpuppet or a returning editor though. He tagged talk pages for wikiprojects withing his first few edits. I'm not familiar enough with the area to venture a guess who the account belongs to. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

According to this SPI request he's a clean-starter (Quigley = Shrigley) but I have no clue as to his prior identity. And don't care, so long as he's avoiding prior trouble topics. Should we ask a committee member to check the terms of his clean start agreement and make sure he's abiding by it? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

If Youreallycan ends up at ArbCom, which based on the current WP:AN doesn't seem so unlikely, his perennial accusers should probably disclose prior accounts, at least to ArbCom. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Cool. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Cancer pain

Hello. I placed the Cancer pain good article review on hold because the article lacks sufficient images. This is my first Good Article review and I'm interested in your response. Thank you! ---Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 20:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello Michael. Thank you for looking at this. This is my first GA nomination, so I won't really be able to bring any experience to the process. I'll have a look over the next few days to see if I can find images that add to the readers' understanding of the topic. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Michael, I've just read through the article again and searched Google and Commons for images that might add to the readers' understanding but didn't find any. Sorry. Do GAs have to have a certain number of photos? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

For criterion 6 "if possible", so there is not a number of images required. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 21:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Question: re-images

I was wondering if you could point me right direction. I recieved permission via phone to use images from a website. The copyright holder said he wouldn't have a problem sending permission; who do I have him send it to? I don't want to impose and ask him to just upload the images himself. This is the website here[9]. he also has other images he said he can send me that I can use. I appreciate any advice you can offer. Thanks 7mike5000 (talk) 00:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Get him to email our volunteers at: permissions-enwikimedia.org using this format. He can copy and paste it into his email.

I hereby affirm that I, (name here) am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of [describe the work to be released in detail, give the URL of the work]

I agree to publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (unported) and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).

I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

[SENDER'S NAME AND DETAILS (to allow future verification of authenticity)]
[SENDER'S AUTHORITY (Are you the copyright-holder, director, appointed representative of, etc.)]
[DATE]

and tell him to ask the OTRS volunteers to post a note on the The Battle for Whiteclay talk page or your talk page letting you know when they've received his email. Once that's done, you can upload the images quoting the OTRS "ticket" number.

I've only done this once, years ago, for this image, and I think composed the actual email for the copyright owner and just got him to paste the entire thing into an email to OTRS. But I'm definitely no expert. Wikipedia:Media copyright questions seems active, and can probably offer more reliable advice than me. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Anthony I appreciate it. BTW that image, is pretty interesting. It also explains alot to me as to why I'm effed up. I have a seahorse inside my brain. 7mike5000 (talk) 00:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Shuddering

"I'm still shuddering at your grossly inappropriate response to my simple effort to explain where I'm coming from."

This is what happens when you perpetuate an edit war before getting any feedback on the talk page. Disruptive edits frequently lead to an editor getting looked up. Surely someone clearly of average intelligence should know this? aprock (talk) 06:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Average intelligence!!!??? (I'm very tempted to take you to ANI for that personal attack.) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

At least you still have your sense of humor.  :) aprock (talk) 06:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

As, clearly, do you. :) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool newsletter

Sorry for the radio silence, guys :). I just wanted to let you know that we're planning on starting a new round of hand coding, which you can sign up for here. This will be the final round (honest!), and is basically because we found some really interesting results from the last round that blew our collective mind. It's important to check that they weren't a fluke, though, and so a bit more work is needed.

If you have any questions, drop a note on my talkpage - and if you know anyone who would be interested in participating, please tell them about it! We'll be holding an IRC training session in #wikimedia-office at 18:00 UTC on the 21st of March to run through the tool and answer any questions you may have. Thanks! :) Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images

I think the Rfc is nearly finalized, but only a few editors have commented recently, not including you. Could you take a look & let us know what you think at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/11_February_2012/Muhammad-images#Finalizing_Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment.2FMuhammad_images. Thanks. Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

There's the IP for ya :)

http://193.62.66.20/~karl/The%20disconnection%20hypothesis.pdf That's one of the sources for the hypothesis I descibed. In addition to DA, a variety of monoamine NT are implicated in schizophrenia, but an abnormal dopamine cascade is how the disease advances. Another big influence on my thinking is The Master and His Emmisary, Ian McGhelchist, quite informative on the abnormal lateralization observed in schizophrenia, split-brain, and patients with other traumatic lesions, I highly reccomend it to everyone. Guywholikesca2+ (talk 01:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC).

Physical Therapy Modifications

Hello. I would just like to mention that according to the MLA, all titles and subtitles should be capitalized (only prepositions and articles are not capitalized words in titles). --MaxDawsonC (talk) 00:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm wrong. I just checked from my MLA handbook and you are right. Titles are always capitalized, but subtitles are not; only the first word is. Sorry for disturbing you. --MaxDawsonC (talk) 01:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for the work you're doing on that article. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Doula question

What do you feel is wrong with the link I had, that you removed? You said it violates Wkipedia's external link policy.... i disagree. PLUS it is no different than other links that you did not remove. Thanks.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Docimastic (talk • contribs) 02:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I was thinking of point 5 at WP:ELNO (Links normally to be avoided) which includes "Links to individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services." The page being linked to seems to be primarily selling a course. I've asked for the opinion of more experienced editors at Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Second_.28or_more.29_opinion_sought.

As for the merits of the other links on that page, my cursory inspection of them led me to believe they're governing bodies or associations, rather than commercial entities. If, after reading WP:EL, you're of the view that some or all don't conform, you're at liberty to remove them. However others may reasonably disagree, and in that case take the discussion to the article talk page (Talk:Doula). --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:15, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah. OK. I've looked more carefully at the other links and have removed the other ones that I believe go against WP:ELNO #5. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Prostate cancer green tea

I'll draw only from the NCI report (which cites some of the same primary studies) but conclude with "the evidence regarding the potential benefits of tea consumption in relation to cancer is inconclusive at present."32cllou (talk) 03:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I can see no merit whatever in adding mentions of primary studies that contributed to that report's conclusions. And cherry-picking encouraging primary studies will only serve to undermine that report's main conclusion.

I've copied this to the article's talk page. Let's continue this there, in case other editors want to contribute. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

False allegations

Hello, Anthonyhcole. You have new messages at Pigsonthewing's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Muhammad

I know that but I can't see any edit buttons? Do I only get one edit button? Thepoodlechef (talk) 03:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I see a few edit buttons, as well as the edit tab at the top, so I can't really help. Perhaps you could run it by Wikipedia:Village Pump (technical). --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiThanks

WikiThanks

In recognition of all the work you’ve done lately! 66.87.0.36 (talk) 18:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure, IP. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Reply

Hello, Anthonyhcole. You have new messages at Pine's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nyttendsucks

Thanks for the alert. At first I was confused, since this happened once before, but it turns out that the other incident was Nyttend is gay, which was blocked in 2007. Nyttend (talk) 11:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Sucks, gay ... mmm ... there's a theme emerging here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to MuZemike's checkuser, this user has been identified as one of the thirty-one members of Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Catcreekcitycouncil. Nyttend (talk) 11:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Blanking sections on Health effects of tea

I noticed you blanked a huge portion of the article on the Health effects of tea. I agree that this article had serious problems with it and needed serious cleanup, but I'm not sure if the approach you've taken was the most constructive. I'm going to post a comment on the talk page and we can continue the discussion there. Cazort (talk) 16:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to add anything you like to the article. But be sure that any health or efficacy claims accurately represent your sources. Health-related content needs to cite sources that conform to WP:MEDRS. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool updates

Hey all. My regular(ish) update on what's been happening with the new Article Feedback Tool.

Hand-coding

As previously mentioned, we're doing a big round of hand-coding to finalise testing :). I've been completedly bowled over by the response: we have 20 editors participating, some old and some new, which is a new record for this activity. Many thanks to everyone who has volunteered so far!

Coding should actively start on Saturday, when I'll be distributing individualised usernames and passwords to everyone. If you haven't spoken to me but would be interested in participating, either drop me a note on my talkpage or email okeyeswikimedia.org. If you have spoken to me, I'm very sorry for the delay :(. There were some toolserver database issues beyond our control (which I think the Signpost discussed) that messed with the tool.

New designs and office hours

Our awesome designers have been making some new logos for the feedback page :) Check out the oversighter view and the monitor view to get complete coverage; all opinions, comments and suggestions are welcome on the talkpage :).

We've also been working on the Abuse Filter plugin for the tool; this will basically be the same as the existing system, only applied to comments. Because of that, we're obviously going to need slightly different filters, because different things will need to be blocked :). We're holding a special office hours session tomorrow at 22:00 UTC to discuss it. If you're a regex nut, existing abuse filter writer, or simply interested in the feedback tool and have suggestions, please do come along :).

I'm pretty sure that's it; if I've missed anything or you have any additional queries, don't hesitate to contact me! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 6

Hi. When you recently edited Herpangina, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vesicle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --John (talk) 19:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Baiting

I wish I had gotten here a little earlier, but I had to leave the computer for a while. Your comments on AN, whether you meant to liken Malleus to a brat or not, really wasn't the best wording. Civility policy doesn't permit baiting other editors into crossing NPA in response. I can't read motives or minds, so I have no idea what your intent actually was, but, really, there's never any need to come close to likening another contributor to a brat, and your comment "Naughty or thoughtless brats being told to go and play in another sandbox was the metaphor I had in mind." can at least reasonably be read as calling Malleus naughty or a thoughtless brat. I'd appreciate it if you could avoid even coming close to that reading in the future, thanks. Courcelles 19:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Just to larify, I don't think you were attacking him, just that your comments can be read in that manner, and even making comments that can be taken that way can lower the quality of discourse. Courcelles 19:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Especially with the edit summary. --John (talk) 19:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I wanted to believe that it was not intentional, but rereading the conversation it appears that you worked up to it and eventually just let him have it, couched in a way to bait a response without appearing to cross the line yourself.

I certainly don't approve (personally) of Malleus' tendency to haul off and do things that a bunch of us find offensive or disruptive. But there's an attack out of nowhere, and there's an attack that's provoked. You clearly provoked. You and Malleus had a contentious discussion that you escalated.

I don't know what if anything is a right thing to do here under the circumstances. In the past, I've advocated and done symmetrical blocks for baiters, but other admins / arbs / senior community people aren't as sure this was intentional as I am seeing, so I am of a mind not to take any action at this time. But, this was not good. It's particularly not good with Malleus, but wouldn't be good with anyone else either.

At the very least, please think about what you did here and the wider effects that baiting have on the community. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

And as a person who isn't familiar with the current relationship between gwh and MF, this shocked me to the core because I know a little of the history there....---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 22:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't baiting, but it was intemperate. I had earlier referred to this project as Lord of the Flies and when Malleus compared himself to a sacrificial lamb, the sandbox metaphor just popped into my head. I should have left it there. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll have to say that even though I think it was a mistake to block one and not the other (I'd have preferred discussion to any block myself) - I do admire you sticking up for and defending Malleus even to the point to accepting equal blame (although I'm hesitant to use that word). Your actions showed true maturity and integrity. Perhaps, given you've now posted your further thoughts on the matter, perhaps Courcelles will consider lifting the block as a "time served" step. — Ched :  ?  13:28, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The dynamics in that conversation were difficult to follow, as it spread over several threads, talk pages and notice boards, over several days. My insults were more narrative dependent, and very easy to overlook or underestimate. Perhaps, now that their seriousness has been highlighted, and he's had time to reflect, he'll acknowledge that Malleus was perfectly justified in defending his edit, under the circumstances.

Courcelles, above you say "I don't think you were attacking him." If Malleus' comment was an attack, then mine was a worse attack. But I don't think Malleus' was an attack. I didn't feel remotely attacked. It was robust discourse. He pitched his level of forcefulness to match mine. The discourse was fine but we were doing it in a venue that requires more decorum. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I can't leave without saying that I've been astonished at what you've said here and elsewhere; like you, I didn't see our exchange as anything out of the ordinary. Anyway, respect to you for your honesty. Malleus Fatuorum 01:09, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Just demonstrating that I have a mind. Don't go. (But stay the fuck away from the pratt!) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Sad that there aren't more adults about. My utmost respect to you both. — Ched :  ?  21:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Where is the "like" button?---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 22:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Like Drmies (talk)

Hey

Hi Anthony, I was concerned when I saw this and the JSTOR withdrawal. Please don't be upset by recent events. You're one of Wikipedia's most considerate and most thoughtful editors, someone who always brings intelligence and sensitivity to discussions, and different ways of looking at things. This recent issue is just a little local difficulty. I think you should restore your name to those lists (as should Malleus), and just get on with things until the storm clouds pass, as they soon will. All the best, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, SV. I've decided to re-enrol next semester, so I won't need that database access. But yes, I'm reassessing my involvement here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't try to persuade people to stay on WP nowadays, because it can be a harsh place and a break can work wonders. But if you do take a break, I hope it'll be for the right reasons, and please know that you'll be missed if you do. As for the subscription, you would have access to JSTOR at college, but Highbeam too? Bear in mind that there are apparently lots of the latter available, more subscriptions than requests at the moment, so you may as well avail yourself. We get nothing for our work here (usually not even thanks), except the hope that readers might know more after they read our articles than they did before. So when something like this is offered, it makes sense to grab it. :) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again. I'm just feeling a kind of disgust at the moment. I'll (almost) certainly be back. Usually I feel like a gardener here; at the moment it's feeling more like, I don't know. Not gardening. I'll catch you later. (I really appreciate your thoughts, but I'll archive this thread now so as not to encourage questions from others that I don't know the answers to. You can address me any time you like on any topic.) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey

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

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

A quiet word

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

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

User talk:Malleus Fatuorum

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

If you don't get 72 hours straight away it will be a disgrace. I have watched you edits over there this afternoon and knew this was coming. Anything to do with this [10]? Leaky Caldron 16:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

ANI

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

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

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

Block

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

Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your HighBeam account is ready!

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

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

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

What's an Aguaxima?

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

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

RfC

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

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

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

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

Yes, I felt I had every right to. I haven't heard from the person I reverted yet. I'd like to know what they think. They are as likely to approve of my behaviour as dislike it. I'll notify them now. I certainly owe them an apology if I've offended them. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)