Edit filter log

'__NOINDEX__ <!--Template:Archivebox begins--> {| class="infobox" width="315px" |- ! align="center" | [[Image:Vista-file-manager.png|50px|Archive]]<br />[[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|Archives]] ---- |- | # [[User talk:Colin/Archive 1|6 December 2005 &ndash; 14 July 2006]] # [[User talk:Colin/Archive 2| 4 August 2006 &ndash; 18 March 2007]] # [[User talk:Colin/Archive 3| 19 March 2007 &ndash; 8 November 2007]] # [[User talk:Colin/Archive 4| 11 November 2007 &ndash; 26 June 2008]] # [[User talk:Colin/Archive 5| 1 July 2008 &ndash; 28 September 2008]] # [[User talk:Colin/Archive 6| 1 October 2008 &ndash; 24 November 2009]] # [[User talk:Colin/Archive 7| 16 December 2009 &ndash; 4 July 2010]] # [[User talk:Colin/Archive 8| 30 August 2010 &ndash; 30 September 2012]] # [[User talk:Colin/Archive 9| 22 October 2012 &ndash; 25 April 2013]] # [[User talk:Colin/Archive 10| 30 April 2014 &ndash; 1 October 2014 ]] # [[User talk:Colin/Archive 11| 19 November 2014 &ndash; 3 April 2018 ]] # [[User talk:Colin/Archive 11| 25 September 2018 &ndash; 3 June 2020 ]] |} <!--Template:Archivebox ends--> == Quarter Million Award for Dementia with Lewy bodies == {| style="border: 1px solid red; background-color: #fff7f7; width: 100%;" | rowspan="2" | [[File:Million award logo.svg|100px|alt=]] | style="font-size: x-large;" | '''The Quarter Million Award''' |- | style="border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For your contributions to bring [[Dementia with Lewy bodies]] (estimated annual readership: <span class="nowrap"><span data-sort-value="7005392000000000000♠"></span>392,000</span>) to [[Wikipedia:Featured articles|Featured Article]] status, I hereby present you the [[Wikipedia:Million Award|Quarter Million Award]]. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! [[User:Reidgreg|Reidgreg]] ([[User talk:Reidgreg|talk]]) 14:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC) |} [[User:Reidgreg|Reidgreg]], thanks very much. -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|^Talk]] 14:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC) {| style="border: 1px solid red; background-color: #fff7f7; width: 100%;" | rowspan="2" | [[File:Million award logo.svg|100px|alt=]] | style="font-size: x-large;" | '''The Million Award''' |- | style="border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For your contributions to bring [[Ketogenic diet]] (estimated annual readership: <span class="nowrap"><span data-sort-value="7006240000000000000♠"></span>2,400,000</span>) to [[Wikipedia:Featured articles|Featured Article]] status, I hereby present you the [[Wikipedia:Million Award| Million Award]]. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! [[User:Reidgreg|Reidgreg]] ([[User talk:Reidgreg|talk]]) 16:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC) |} Here's this one as well, and added to the [[Wikipedia:Million Award#Million Award Hall of Fame|Million Award Hall of Fame]]. – [[User:Reidgreg|Reidgreg]] ([[User talk:Reidgreg|talk]]) 16:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC) ==[[Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Old Royal Naval College]]== <!-- comment to force linebreak --> {| align=center border=0 cellpadding=4 cellspacing=4 style="border: 1px solid #CC9; background-color: #cfc" |- |[[File:Old Royal Naval College 2017-08-06.jpg|75px|center|]] |{{center|'''An image created by you has been promoted to [[Wikipedia:Featured picture|featured picture]] status'''}} Your image, '''[[:File:Old Royal Naval College 2017-08-06.jpg]]''', was nominated on [[Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates]], gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at [[Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates]]. Thank you for your contribution! [[User:Armbrust|Armbrust]] ^{[[User talk:Armbrust|<span style="color: #E3A857;">The</span> <span style="color: #008000;">Homunculus</span>]]} 01:19, 5 July 2020 (UTC) |} == List == What to do with a mess like [[List of figures in psychiatry]] ? [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 23:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC) :[[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy]] I looked at it, and then I looked at about 20 other "List of ___" pages, and only found one that had even a few citations. It seems generally these are all unsourced. Referenced lists of people are hard work, so unless you particularly want a great list of figures in psychiatry, I'd be tempted to just leave alone. -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|^Talk]] 10:35, 8 July 2020 (UTC) == Scope of publishing your Wikipedia article in academic journals == You have done a overwhelming lot of work on the article [[Ketogenic diet]]. The article is within the scope of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Epilepsy|WikiProject Epilepsy]] and as the Editor in Chief of the [[Wikipedia:ILAE Wikipedia Project/About|ILAE Wikipedia Project]] I welcome you to join the project. I also welcome you to co-publish this Wikipedia article in some open access academic journal. This would automatically acknowledge your contributions by providing you with author credits. If you are interested, do not hesitate to reach out to me and we can get working on it. <span style="font-family:Segoe script">[[User:Diptanshu Das|<b style="color:#f00">D</b><b style="color:#f60">ip</b><b style="color:#090">ta</b><b style="color:#00f">ns</b><b style="color:#60c">hu</b>]] [[User talk:Diptanshu Das|&#128172;]]</span> 09:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC) :Hi [[User:Diptanshu Das|Diptanshu Das]]. I've applied to join the ILAE project. I'm not sure where I fit into your levels of editors, though, which seems a bit restrictive. My opinion about Wikipedia has always been that it is a community project, open to anyone, to write a free-content encyclopaedia. So currently I'm not bothered about achieving academic credits, particularly when I know how much support I've received from other editors who would not be credited. I hope the primary focus of this project is to write great Wikipedia articles, for the general reader, rather than to write journal papers for other medics. Thanks for the invite. -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|^Talk]] 11:16, 8 July 2020 (UTC) ::Thanks a lot for your response. I understand that you are not very active currently but still would encourage you to carry on the good work that you have been doing. I have been a Wikipedian for more than 12 years and have been editing medical articles due to the sheer charm of it and not for academic credits. The purpose of my involvement in the current role remains just the same and I seek to gain from your commitment and experience, especially because of its inclination to epilepsy. I would seek your assistance in shaping the project. The purpose with which I am working is to bring academicians to Wikipedia and to infuse the spirit of Wikipedia into them. Meanwhile, the articles within the scope of the project would get developed. ::The article [[Ketogenic diet]] already is a featured article. I plan to expose it to the ILAE experts for their take on the topic. I am quite certain that they would be satisfied but possibly they would have a few inputs. I would join hands with you in making updates, if they are needed. ::I would urge you to have a look at the [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bgAEmzs4q2TkmyO9mrgm-h6BKiaSGHTV4Jl2_dcr-uA/edit plan] I have developed and would seek your feedback on the same. If you are willing, I would like to connect off-wiki with you. You can write to me at das.diptanshu @ gmail . com - <span style="font-family:Segoe script">[[User:Diptanshu Das|<b style="color:#f00">D</b><b style="color:#f60">ip</b><b style="color:#090">ta</b><b style="color:#00f">ns</b><b style="color:#60c">hu</b>]] [[User talk:Diptanshu Das|&#128172;]]</span> 11:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC) ==[[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion|Speedy deletion]] nomination of [[:User:Colin/PriceMistakes]]== [[File:Ambox warning pn.svg|48px|left|alt=|link=]] A tag has been placed on [[:User:Colin/PriceMistakes]] requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under [[WP:CSD#U5|section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion]], because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that [[WP:NOTWEBHOST|Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service]]. Under the [[WP:CSD#User pages|criteria for speedy deletion]], such pages may be deleted at any time. If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may '''contest the nomination''' by [[:User:Colin/PriceMistakes|visiting the page]] and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with [[Wikipedia:List of policies|Wikipedia's policies and guidelines]]. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the {{Querylink|Special:Log|qs=type=delete&page=User%3AColin%2FPriceMistakes|deleting administrator}}, or if you have already done so, you can place a request [[WP:RFUD|here]]. <!-- Template:Db-notwebhost-notice --> <!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --> --[[User:TheImaCow|TheImaCow]] ([[User talk:TheImaCow#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/TheImaCow|contribs]]) 16:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC) == [[:File:Mount Stuart House 2018-08-25.jpg]] scheduled for POTD == Hi Colin, This is to let you know that the featured picture [[:File:Mount Stuart House 2018-08-25.jpg]], which you uploaded or nominated, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Picture of the day|picture of the day]] (POTD) for September 18, 2020. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at [[Template:POTD/2020-09-18]]. If you have any concerns, please place a message at [[Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day]]. Thank you! [[User:Cwmhiraeth|Cwmhiraeth]] ([[User talk:Cwmhiraeth|talk]]) 10:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC) <!-- Template:NotifyPOTD --> <div style="margin-top:4px; border:1px solid #ddcef2; background:#faf5ff; overflow:auto;"><div style="margin:0.6em 0.4em 0.1em;">{{POTD/Day|2020-09-18|excludeheader=yes}}</div></div> == WP:MED Newsletter - November 2020 == {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Newsletter/November 2020}} [[User:Ajpolino|Ajpolino]] ([[User talk:Ajpolino|talk]]) 20:56, 5 November 2020 (UTC) <!-- Message sent by User:Ajpolino@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Newsletter/Mailing_list&oldid=987245806 --> == ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message == <table class="messagebox " style="border: 1px solid #AAA; background: ivory; padding: 0.5em; width: 100%;"> <tr><td style="vertical-align:middle; padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">[[File:Scale of justice 2.svg|40px]]</td><td>Hello! Voting in the '''[[WP:ACE2020|2020 Arbitration Committee elections]]''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2020|end}}-1 day}}. All '''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2020#Election timeline|eligible users]]''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The [[WP:ARBCOM|Arbitration Committee]] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration|Wikipedia arbitration process]]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose [[WP:BAN|site bans]], [[WP:TBAN|topic bans]], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy|arbitration policy]] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2020/Candidates|the candidates]] and submit your choices on the '''[[Special:SecurePoll/vote/{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2020|poll}}|voting page]]'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 01:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC) </td></tr> </table> <!-- Message sent by User:Xaosflux@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2020/Coordination/MMS/01&oldid=990307860 --> == WikiProject Medicine Newsletter - December 2020 == {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Newsletter/December 2020}} [[User:Ajpolino|Ajpolino]] ([[User talk:Ajpolino#top|talk]]) 01:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC) <!-- Message sent by User:Ajpolino@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Newsletter/Mailing_list&oldid=990275325 --> == Greetings of the season == {| style="border: 1px solid plum; background-color: #A3BFB1;" |rowspan="2" valign="middle" | {{multiple image|perrow=2/1|total_width=360|caption_align=center | align = left | image_style = border:none; | image1 = John William Waterhouse - I am half-sick of shadows, said the lady of shalott.JPG | image2= Candle on Christmas tree 3.jpg | footer= ''[[I Am Half-Sick of Shadows, Said the Lady of Shalott]]'' }} |rowspan="2" | |style="font-size: large; color: white; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''Happy holidays''' |- |style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid White;" |<span style="color:White;"> Dear Colin, </span><br /><br />For you and all your loved ones,<br /><br /><span style="color:White;">[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Xo165fW500 "Let there be mercy"]</span>. <br /> Wishing you health,<br />peace and happiness <br /> this holiday season and <br />in the coming year. <br /><br />[[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 00:10, 25 December 2020 (UTC) |} == COVID-19 vaccine == [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_vaccine&curid=63325697&diff=996653992&oldid=996638864 This edit] was not helpful. Before you start criticising my actions in enforcing discretionary sanctions again, you need to get a grip on the history of the behavioural problems. You are not the judge of what sanctions are warranted and your interference will simply result in encouraging RoY to make biomedical claims without sufficient sourcing again. If you want to see them topic banned from medical articles, you're going the right way about it. They have already crossed a line far enough to attract discretionary sanctions, and your encouragement of their behaviour is equally reprehensible. Until you butted in, I was reasonably hopeful that RoY would take the time to read and understand MEDRS. If you really want to improve [[COVID-19 vaccine]], rather than pursuing personal vendettas by sniping from the peanut gallery, then you should be spending your time cleaning up the article. There's enough cleanup required. --:[[User:RexxS|RexxS]] ([[User talk:RexxS|talk]]) 00:53, 28 December 2020 (UTC) :[[User:RexxS|RexxS]], your remarks "rather than pursuing personal vendettas", "sniping from the peanut gallery" and criticism of what volunteer editors are not doing enough of in their precious spare time, are all personal attacks. Repeating them yet again doesn't help you. Admins must be open to criticism, particularly so when performing or threatening to perform admin activity. Responding to criticism by personally attacking the criticising editor is unacceptable behaviour on Wikipedia. In recent weeks, I have been far from alone from asking you be less aggressive towards good-faith editors. :Could you perhaps take ''"just because I can, doesn't mean I should"'' to heart wrt your admin buttons and ability to threaten editors. You posted a request at [[WT:MED]] for editors there to review the situation at Covid-19 vaccine. I did review it and I did review that editors history which is only a handful of pages long. I saw a good-faith editor trying to improve Wikipedia and who was stumbling with the most common medical-newbie mistakes. I also saw them make the most common and human mistake when responding to being reverted by some random guy on the internet. As an admin, you are supposed to scare away the bad guys, not the newbies. [[Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers]] and all that. -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|^Talk]] 10:32, 28 December 2020 (UTC) == Re: COVID Vaccine Article == Hello, due to your balanced and neutral approach I was able to clearly make sense of the different requirements for bio-medical articles. However, the other chap just came across as angry and hostile leading me to believe his revert was for emotional reasons. Having read up on editing bio-medical articles I can now see his point, I just wish he’d come across less hostile, best regards.[[User:Roland Of Yew|Roland Of Yew]] ([[User talk:Roland Of Yew|talk]]) 09:01, 28 December 2020 (UTC) :[[User:Roland Of Yew|Roland Of Yew]], thanks for editing Wikipedia. I appreciate your edit was in good-faith and used a source that for most of Wikipedia, including BLPs, would likely be regarded as reliable and accepted. [[WP:MEDRS]] can be confusing to begin with and take a while for some of the decisions that the community has agreed on to sink in. My own first edits on Wikipedia used sources I wouldn't use today. I know that being reverted stings, and when some random guy on the internet undoes your good work, it can seem like ''they'' are the vandal and the edit warrior. And that brings a big temptation to revert back rather than listen and pause. You chose the worse possible place on Wikipedia to do that, and as a result have earned a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roland_Of_Yew&diff=996639414&oldid=996622716&diffmode=source "final warning"] on your talk page. :As much as I disagree with RexxS's approach, you need to take that warning seriously. I encourage you to remove the comment about "hypocritical editorial methodology" which could be taken as a personal attack. Removing it will also be taken as gesture of goodwill on your part. I had a look at some, but certainly not all, of the sources on that page that cited newspapers and such, and they mostly seemed to be sourcing text covering business facts or government actions, etc, and not requiring [[WP:MEDRS]]. If there are some text+source in the article you think should fail due to [[WP:MEDRS]] then please post a neutral comment on the article talk page, and they can be reviewed. You mentioned that you may have some "new reports" and "secondary sources" in the next few days. Can I encourage you, should you still want to edit Covid articles at all, to post your proposed edits on the talk page, and to listen to the feedback. If you are in doubt, post a query at [[WT:MED]]. With that final warning hanging over your neck, you need to take careful steps. -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|^Talk]] 10:15, 28 December 2020 (UTC) : (talk page stalker): {{u|Roland Of Yew}}, I'm sorry if my OTHERSTUFFEXISTS post also left you confused; one of the great problems of Wikipedia is that you can find junk in any article that no one has cleaned up, and then new-ish editors wonder why they are being taken to task. We can only deal with what we see when we see it, and I for one am hesitant to dig in to articles that have discretionary sanctions in place to do old cleanup, particularly when those articles are In The News (featured on the mainpage), and being hit with all kinds of [[WP:NOTNEWS]] edits. I agree with Colin that, with respect to laypress sources and COVID articles, it is important to take the discretionary sanctions very seriously, and be sure you understand when it is OK to use laypress, and when we should not. The COVID articles are rife with sources that are not compliant, and content that reflects [[WP:RECENTISM]] and breaches [[WP:NOTNEWS]]. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 15:30, 28 December 2020 (UTC) ::Thanks guys, I really appreciate your advice and want to say that you truly do reflect the very best of Wikipedia.[[User:Roland Of Yew|Roland Of Yew]] ([[User talk:Roland Of Yew|talk]]) 16:42, 28 December 2020 (UTC) == Thanks for edits re drug pricing == Would be great if you found the "culprit" and asked them to please cite properly. There are hundreds of such paragraphs on WP. I'm busy today. Thanks.--[[User:Quisqualis|Quisqualis]] ([[User talk:Quisqualis|talk]]) 18:29, 28 December 2020 (UTC) :[[User:Quisqualis|Quisqualis]] there is an add-on for Chrome and Firefox called [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Who_Wrote_That%3F Who Wrote That?]. It lets you see who wrote the content on the page and when it was added. It isn't perfect by a long way, and can get confused if page content is moved around. -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|^Talk]] 18:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC) ::Thanks for the link--[[User:Quisqualis|Quisqualis]] ([[User talk:Quisqualis|talk]]) 19:49, 28 December 2020 (UTC) == Thanks for recommending Whowrotethat == I just ran it on the material you recently removed from [[Nabumetone]]. Wonder of wonders, it was [[User:Doc James]] who added that sentence. It would be nice if there were something like a Wikidata for drug prices that would, at least, tell users how various drugs' prices compare (as in low-mid-high-priced). In fact, it would be more than "nice"; it would be kind of vital.--[[User:Quisqualis|Quisqualis]] ([[User talk:Quisqualis|talk]]) 16:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC) :[[User:Quisqualis|Quisqualis]], drug prices have been discussed extensively by the medical project and it is really too complicated to simplify into low/mid/high prices, and our requirement to avoid original research gets in the way. Add to that the problem that volunteers just haven't kept the prices up to date for about six years. I think this is an area where commercial publishers already do a good job. If you are in the UK and interested to know how much a drug costs the NHS, then the BNF website gives you all the data you might need. In the US then GoodRX seems to be the best site for retail price figures. -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|^Talk]] 17:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC) ::Good points. It clearly isn't in Wikipedia's ambit to create such a tool. Thanks.--[[User:Quisqualis|Quisqualis]] ([[User talk:Quisqualis|talk]]) 05:27, 30 December 2020 (UTC) == WikiProject Medicine Newsletter - January 2021 == {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Newsletter/January 2021}} [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 06:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC) <!-- Message sent by User:Ajpolino@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Newsletter/Mailing_list&oldid=998571518 --> == Griddle scone == [[File:Scone varieties.jpg|thumb|220px|Clockwise from bottom: hot buttered tattie scones next to a cheese scone, shiny and flat treacle scones, and a milk scone above a fruit scone]] Do you ever make [[Griddle scone]]s, or know anyone who does? We don't seem to have any pictures. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 02:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC) :{{u|WhatamIdoing}}, there are griddle scones on this plate (though I don't know whether that term would be used). Certainly the two triangular potato scones at the bottom would be made in a pan or on the hob. [[User:SlimVirgin|SarahSV]] <small>^{[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]}</small> 05:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC) ::[[User:SlimVirgin|SarahSV]], I've added the description from the thumb in the [[scone]] article, which I think is correct. A "tattie scone" is a [[potato scone]]. My mum has a girdle (griddle) that [https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-traditional-irish-soda-bread-farls-freshly-baked-on-a-cast-iron-griddle-50412412.html looks like this]: heavy cast iron with a handle that rotates for storage. I always assumed they only worked well on a gas hob, but the photo there has an electric one. The heavy base distributes the heat, and the lack of any rim or lip round the edge makes it easier to get something under the scones to flip them. You can cook scones, [[Bannock (food)|bannocks]], [[Pancake#Scotland|Scotch pancakes]] (also called dropped scones), and [[oatcake]]s. I guess the "griddle scone" is just term for a scone type of food cooked on top of a griddle rather than in an oven, so it is flatter than some other scones. In the photo, I'm not sure about the cheese scone, but the others would all have been cooked on a girdle. Unfortunately, I'm not likely to be visiting my mum any time soon, as she's 400 miles away and we are in lockdown. ::Now I'm looking at that hot potato scone, covered in melted butter, and getting hungry. I wonder if I could make them with the [[Smash (instant mashed potato)|Smash]] I bought to make your [[Slovenian potica]] recipe. I just have to figure out the proportion of potato flakes to flour. I don't have a gridle, though, only a frying pan. -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|^Talk]] 11:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC) :::It looks like there are a few recipes that use the flakes directly, such as https://www.imperialteagarden.com/pages/potato-scones and http://www.lauraleacooks.com/2011/03/potato-scones.html, but others use the already-rehydrated form. :::[[User:SlimVirgin|Sarah]], thanks for finding that photo. Would you like to put it in the article? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 19:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC) [[File:Potato scone with vegetable bake.jpg|thumb|My potato scones with vegetable bake, made with Smash!]] ::::I was hungry and couldn't wait for the sun to move round to your bit of the planet. So I improvised with the [https://www.scottishscran.com/traditional-scottish-tattie-scone-recipe/ very simple recipe here]. It is really just mashed potatoes, flour and butter. In the end, I think I should have made the mash a bit drier as I ended up adding more flour and more potato flakes to thicken it. Even then, I needed plenty flour on my hands and board to stop it being sticky. But they turned out fine. My idea of a potato scone is something quite flat like this, but my wife thinks of something thicker, for which I think you'd need to add bicarb. The recipes you linked look just weird and wrong :-) But I'm sure they are tasty too. This is the problem: what people call a "scone" or "pancake" is so variable. We can even agree how to pronounce "scone", never mind bake it. Which makes it harder for Wikipedia 'cause we want to have hard facts and not randomness. -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|^Talk]] 22:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC) :::::Colin, your potato scones look great, but they need a bit of butter or similar. It's supposed to drip down your chin as you eat them. Or you can fry them to eat with a full breakfast. {{u|WhatamIdoing}}, I'll let you add it if you want. I was surprised not to find lots of potato scone photos. There are lots on Flickr but not free. [[User:SlimVirgin|SarahSV]] <small>^{[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]}</small> 05:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC) ::::::I was trying to be healthy yesterday. We had some leftover so today I reheated them with lots of melted butter along with a fried egg. Not such a healthy lunch today. To be honest, they reheat so well that there isn't an advantage to eating them freshly-made, unlike some other baked food. So if you can get them in your shops it is probably not worth making them yourself, unless you have lots of mashed potato to use up. A full cooked breakfast is usually something I only experience if staying at a B&B, where breakfast-quality is an important part of the selection process, and the aim is to get so stuffed you don't need lunch. -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|^Talk]] 14:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC) :::::::I've added both pictures to [[Griddle scone]] and dug up a passable source for the name. Thank you both for making this improvement possible. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 02:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC) == Re: [[Deployment of COVID-19 vaccines]] == Hello, perhaps you will remember me...We met a few months ago, per some "MEDMOS issues". Perhaps you can help me. While reading [[Deployment of COVID-19 vaccines]], under the Cold chain section, first paragraph, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deployment_of_COVID-19_vaccines&oldid=1002187004#Cold_chain] I found the following: "The Moderna vaccine vials require storage above −40 °C (−40 °F) and between −25 and −15 °C (−13 and 5 °F).[88] Once refrigerated, the Moderna vaccine can be kept between 2 and 8 °C (36 and 46 °F) for up to 30 days.[88]" However, the reference is from 28 May 2014, and does not mention the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine, although it does discuss the cold chain for vaccines in general. Is this a problem? I am accustomed to reading refs that specifically support the article text, but I do not have the education/ability to evaluate this situation. I could be wrong...Thanks for your time. Good to see you editing once again! Best, <b>[[User:Tribe of Tiger|<span style="font-family:Segoe print;color:#B22222">Tribe of Tiger</span>]] [[User Talk:Tribe of Tiger|<sup style="font-family:Segoe print;color:#B22222">Let's Purrfect!</sup>]]</b> 23:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC) :Thanks. Good spot. I had a look at the history. It seems a mistake was made when cut-n-paste text from one article to start this new article. I've left a post on the article talk page. I think it will probably be easier for the editors there to investigate their own mistake(s) than for me, especially as all these covid articles are huge. -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|^Talk]] 11:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC) ::Thanks for your good summary on the talkpage and for mentioning me, very kind of you. (I didn't think the Moderna vaccine had managed to time-travel back to 2014, heh, heh. But it was seriously worrying that this important info was un-referenced.) I had already discovered the cut and paste, by searching through Wikiblame. My understanding is that cut and paste is discouraged, because we lose the original/previous page history. ::I don't have medical knowledge, but I could compare the pre move text/references (from the historical version of the parent article) with the present references, to see if there are additional errors. That's basic gnoming work. Should I offer my services, on the talkpage? Or can someone with knowledge of moves/merges or whatever "fix" the entire issue, without a tedious point by point comparison? Thanks again, for verifying my discovery. You have done "your part" admirably, by confirming and warning. Others can correct their own mistakes. Best wishes, <b>[[User:Tribe of Tiger|<span style="font-family:Segoe print;color:#B22222">Tribe of Tiger</span>]] [[User Talk:Tribe of Tiger|<sup style="font-family:Segoe print;color:#B22222">Let's Purrfect!</sup>]]</b> 23:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC) :::[[User:Tribe of Tiger|Tribe of Tiger]] you don't need to get permission on the talk page to fix up mistakes. I thought I'd leave it to the original editor to fix because the article text is ok and only the ref got screwed up so no rush. And perhaps they will realise they made other mistakes. But if you want to fix it then I'm sure everyone would be happy. I'm not sure there is any way other than cut-n-paste to split an article. There are guidelines somewhere, about how to attribute properly in the edit summary, but there isn't any way to split the history of an article so that now two articles share a common history, say. -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|^Talk]] 14:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC) ::::{{u|Colin}}, I lacked "the courage of my convictions", so your support was much appreciated. Normally, I would not hesitate to fix reference mistakes, but this is a COVID-19 "medical" article. A reply by the original editor has been posted on the talkpage, and they have made changes in response to your post concerning my discovery. Thanks for explaining "splits ". I can move forward from here! Best wishes to you, <b>[[User:Tribe of Tiger|<span style="font-family:Segoe print;color:#B22222">Tribe of Tiger</span>]] [[User Talk:Tribe of Tiger|<sup style="font-family:Segoe print;color:#B22222">Let's Purrfect!</sup>]]</b> 02:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC) ::::Okay, after a bit of back and forth mistakes, and collegial talkpage conversation (between two other editors), the situation has been rectified. Thanks again for your support. <b>[[User:Tribe of Tiger|<span style="font-family:Segoe print;color:#B22222">Tribe of Tiger</span>]] [[User Talk:Tribe of Tiger|<sup style="font-family:Segoe print;color:#B22222">Let's Purrfect!</sup>]]</b> 02:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC) == DLB == You forgot one, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Colin&curid=2440321&diff=1002435994&oldid=997078744] [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 13:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC) :You are too generous, Sandy. I don't think my contributions there rose above "helping" and "reviewing". -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|^Talk]] 15:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC) :: Yes, they did; you should add it. Your thoroughness brought it over the hump, and you were a co-nom. Don’t make me edit your user page ... there are plenty of admins itching for an excuse to block me. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 15:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC) :::Since when do they need an excuse? [[User:Kablammo|Kablammo]] ([[User talk:Kablammo|talk]]) 18:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC) :::: Since, never. Considering the latest on my talk, not funny :( [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 18:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC) :::::Oh dear. I am reminded of MastCell's advice: {{tq|If you wrestle with a pig, both of you will get muddy. And the pig will enjoy it.}} Since none of that seems to be in the slightest concerned with writing an encyclopaedia, I suggest archiving and unwatching whatever other pages irritate you. -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|^Talk]] 18:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC) :::::: yes, well, instead of that ... heading out to emergency room now for a serious problem. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 18:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC) :::::::{{u|SandyGeorgia}}, just left a post for Colin, and saw this note. Very concerned! Kindest wishes, <b>[[User:Tribe of Tiger|<span style="font-family:Segoe print;color:#B22222">Tribe of Tiger</span>]] [[User Talk:Tribe of Tiger|<sup style="font-family:Segoe print;color:#B22222">Let's Purrfect!</sup>]]</b> 00:21, 25 January 2021 (UTC) == WikiProject Medicine Newsletter - February 2021 == {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Newsletter/February 2021}} [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 05:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC) <!-- Message sent by User:Ajpolino@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Newsletter/Mailing_list&oldid=1001383517 --> == Advice sought == {{reply to|Colin}}, you were very helpful when I had issues editing the COVID-19 vaccine [[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_vaccine&oldid=999271437|article]] using my {{user|Roland Of Yew}} username and wondered if you might have any advice regarding resetting Wikipedia passwords? Somehow, my saved passwords list lost my Wikipedia password and I’ve tried and tried to reset my password; however, the reset links aren’t arriving via email even though I’ve checked the trash/junk bin and requested admin [[Help_talk:Reset_password#Not_receiving_email_following_reset|help]]. Best regards, :[[User:Inadvertent Consequences|Inadvertent Consequences]] Inadvertent Consequences]] ([[User talk:Inadvertent Consequences|talk]]) 12:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC) :[[User:Inadvertent Consequences|Inadvertent Consequences]] Sorry to hear this. I don't know any more than you about how to fix this, beyond looking at the help pages which I see you have already done. I see your old account page doesn't have "email this user", which your new one does, so perhaps you didn't setup an email. If you did, have you checked your junk or spam folder to see if your email software has put it there. If you can't fix it, then I guess you have to start over with the new account. I think it may be best to ask a friendly admin to block your old account to avoid anyone trying to hack it. If you did ever discover the password, then they would unblock it. Admins probably know more about this sort of thing than me. Hope you are well and keeping safe. -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|^Talk]] 16:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC) :: {{reply to|Colin}} ah! I didn’t realise that I hadn’t an email associated with my old account and from everything I’ve read it looks like I’ll have to let that user page go, thanks once again! [[User:Inadvertent Consequences|Inadvertent Consequences]] ([[User talk:Inadvertent Consequences|talk]]) 16:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC) == Manual of Style DS Alert == {{ivmbox | image = Commons-emblem-notice.svg |imagesize=50px | bg = #E5F8FF | text = This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. ''It does '''not''' imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.'' You have shown interest in the English Wikipedia [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] and [[Wikipedia:Article titles|article titles policy]]. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions|discretionary sanctions]] is in effect. Any administrator may impose [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Sanctions|sanctions]] on editors who do not strictly follow [[Wikipedia:List of policies|Wikipedia's policies]], or the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Page restrictions|page-specific restrictions]], when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Guidance for editors|guidance on discretionary sanctions]] and the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee's]] decision [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation|here]]. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. }}<!-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert --> <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> ^{[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]} 17:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC) == Talk:KD == see [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Theuyhjasji]]. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 14:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC) == WikiProject Medicine Newsletter - March 2021 == {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Newsletter/March 2021}} [[User:Ajpolino|Ajpolino]] ([[User talk:Ajpolino|talk]]) 18:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC) <!-- Message sent by User:Ajpolino@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Newsletter/Mailing_list&oldid=1010678369 --> == Readability scores == I'm contemplating MEDMOS and [[WP:MTAA]], and I think that it might be helpful to have a separate essay on [[Readability test|Readability tests]]. IMO the ideal content contains both why you shouldn't rely on them and also some advice about how to get some value out of them (e.g., checking that the sections or paragraphs you deliberately wrote at a simpler level don't score at a higher level). Do you think that you could write such a page? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 05:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC) :I admit I have at times in the past year contemplated writing an essay. There is a history of using such tests on Wikipedia to "demonstrate" that the reading level of articles (or leads) has been "successfully" reduced. And we sometimes see simplistic advice ("use shorter sentences", "never use jargon", "use simpler words"). I read the short linked article but actually [[Readability]] has more on the tests, and is a rambling mess in itself! The final section says "experts warn: can be highly misleading" and has a bunch of citations to 60-year-old books (entire books, no chapters, or pages). How odd that for Wikipedia, "readability" is not about how readable some piece of writing is, but about algorithms to measure it and give it a number. Surely readability should should also include whether one gets pleasure or satisfaction rather than irritation or boredom, or successfully comprehends the topic or subject. I can't see how any algorithm (simplistic or AI) could do that. :Wrt the "get some value out of them", it would be odd for me to suggest such a thing as I've never once thought "I'll run a readability test on my revised prose to see if it really is easier to read", and never then gone "Oh, dear, it has scored higher" or even then "I must try again because the score says so". Have you? What readability scoring tool (website, computer software) do you use? Can you convert me? :We do seem, as humans, obsessed with reducing complex things down to numbers or even binary, and valuing algorithms over people. Wikipedia is a collaborative editing project. So wouldn't the best advice, for someone who has written or rewritten some prose, be to simply ask someone else to look at it? A fresh pair of eyes. :I wonder though if we are making a correlation/causation mistake. Yes, some editors have been focused on readability scores, even published papers about them, and added over-simplistic advice to our guidelines. But it wouldn't have been a significant problem if they were gifted writers, or who actively collaborated with others on their prose. If brilliant prose flowed out of their keyboards, or was the fruit of a wonderful collaboration, none of us would have minded a quaint obsession with algorithms from an age when doctors smoked. Maybe this is fighting yesterday's battle? -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|^Talk]] 16:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC) ::Yes on "yesterday's battle". [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Menstrual_cycle&diff=1010285906&oldid=1010285850 This] set a lot of good work completely back, and that sort of editing originated from the same place as "yesterday". I don't think this is a MEDMOS issue, although it seemed to become one because of the group of proponents. (Colin, I pinged you about a Keto edit to [[Alzheimer's disease]].) [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 16:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC) :::The link you give is recent. I agree the edit was not "brilliant prose". But what's the cause? Aiming to improve readability scoring? Bad advice? Lack of talent or ability? Lack of experience? -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|^Talk]] 16:47, 12 March 2021 (UTC) :::: Look at how [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Sanitation|this page]] was built, with advocacy goals from the beginning. View the "Objectives" (advocacy) which have remained constant since the Project's founding. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 17:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC) :::::Oh, save me from advocacy editing! And leads that nobody other than a translator would want to read. And readability score targets. *sigh*. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sanitation&action=history The talk page history] suggests the project is effectively dead, and the project advice is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sanitation&offset=&limit=500&action=history just one person's whacky ideas]. -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|^Talk]] 17:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC) ::::::They mean well, and Femke certainly meant well when she invited that WikiProject to the FAR of menstrual cycle, but it really set back progress, partly also because that WP has pretty much zero experience in how non-advocacy articles are actually written. Hence, [[menstruation]] now an article more about advocacy than the actual topic ... [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 17:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC) ::I have re-written text based on what the algorithms say, but (a) either never or only rarely in Wikipedia articles, and (b) the goal is to help adults who depend on machine translation or otherwise can't read English easily. I don't think that changes based on these algorithms make the text more readable, but I do think they make it less mis-understandable. ::I can give you an example. I turned this: ::* In the beginning of this year, we worked with the Wikimedia research team to understand how talk page use impacts article whether editing talk pages changes how much editors edit articles. ::into this: ::* The Editing team and the Wikimedia research team studied how talk pages help editors improve articles. ::Neither of these are brilliant prose, but one of them is much less likely to get mangled by machine translation. ::I think that if we create an essay, it should aim for a middle-of-the-road POV. IMO the middle of the road is that the algorithms are a bit like taking blood pressure: if you know what you're doing, you can get some useful information that, in combination with other information, might be useful to you, but if you don't know what you're doing, you're probably going to screw up. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 02:34, 14 March 2021 (UTC) :::I'm not convinced the blood pressure analogy is fair. While "treating the measurement" is a flaw doctors know about and suffer from, that's still a tool no doctor would do without. Did you make a typo in your example, because the long sentence makes no sense. Should "article whether" be "articles, and whether". The fixed sentence has repetition, is muddled and is vague. The revised sentence gets to the point, albeit one without any specifics on what you studied or when. You fixed it by writing concisely and eliminating anything not necessary to the message you want to get across. Whereas someone who is a slave to a robot score would fix it by chopping the sentence up. They might even have made things worse, writing: :::*In the beginning of this year, we worked with the Wikimedia research team. We wanted to understand how talk page use impacts articles. We looked at whether editing talk pages changes how much editors edit articles. :::I've just got myself the Oxford Guide to Plain English, Fifth Edition, by Martin Cutts. Just glancing at the contents page shows that of the 30 chapters, only one, chapter 19, is about pitching at the right reading level/age. The author spends more time discussing the drawbacks and limitations of readability tests than he does finding value in them. The author founded the Plain English Campaign and runs https://www.clearest.co.uk/. There is far, far more about writing clear, concise and engaging prose, than these robots appreciate. It doesn't matter much if a 13-year-old can read it, if it muddled, ambiguous, misleading, tedious or dull. -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|^Talk]] 12:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC) ::::I didn't write the original draft (and I don't mind that it wasn't polished; it wasn't meant to be). ::::I think that if we write a page that says they're absolutely useless, then we won't reach the relevant audience. Some people will latch onto a single counterargument and believe that it disproves the entire concept. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 15:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC) :::::I think their limitations suggest they are more appropriate for non-technical writing that has no excuse for difficult or long words and little complexity to explain. Like your Wikimedia business document, or a biography of a musician. And more appropriate for someone writing alone who then has to submit their draft for approval/publication, vs someone who is part of the biggest collaborative writing project on the planet. I wonder if for technical matters they may give too many unhelpful results. And then editors hack the sentence length into PowerPoint bullets just to bring the score down, or naively replace or remove words they think might be giving a high score. Perhaps they should be concentrating on other things that make the text more readable and understandable? If there are, to crudely pick chapter numbers from the book I mentioned, 30 things that could improve the readability of your text, and the tool only examines two variables, then you're going to over-concentrate on those two variables. :::::What tool do you recommend? Can it highlight sentences or words that might be problematic, or does it just give a score for a whole page, and leave you to scratch your head about what it didn't like? :::::I'd like to know if any decent writers, other than yourself, find them of value for Wikipedia. You said above that you've only "never or only rarely" rewritten Wikipedia article text on what score it got. That's not a promising start. You speculate on the the consequences of saying "they're absolutely useless" but haven't really convinced me that it would be honest to write "they can be useful for editing Wikipedia articles". It seems like neither of us would be speaking from any personal experience on that front. -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|^Talk]] 16:51, 15 March 2021 (UTC) ::::::I usually use https://hemingwayapp.com/ because it highlights passive voice (good writing+machine translation), compound and complex sentences (machine+human translation), and overuse of adverbs (good writing). They added the reading score calculation more recently. I don't find that especially helpful myself, but I think that some people might benefit from the occasional moment of discovering how well their instinct aligns with an external measurement. If you're saying "easy" and it says "post-graduate level", then one of you is probably wrong. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 21:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC) :::::::I'll have a play with it. I posted some NHS text to it and it thought "However, " and "maximum" were complex and should be replaced or omitted, which didn't seem good advice here. A worry is if a tool highlights all the adverbs or all the passive voice, isn't there a temptation to whack-a-mole them all out? But I can also see value in those highlights if one is careful. Most sensible writing advice does not view English like a computer language with absolute rules and unforgivable sins. I'm not quite sure that a comparison of "easy" and "post-grad" is helping your case, because that's such an extreme difference. Another reader or editor with any writing ability would be able to tell you that too. So perhaps this gives a "wake up call" to someone deluded that they are writing at the patient-information-leaflet level. But I suspect such a deluded writer would also be the same writer who thinks they can make their muddled, ambiguous and rambling prose into low-literacy-friendly clear English by simply chopping all the sentences in two, and in two again (because shorter is ALWAYS better), and replacing all the long words with "it". :::::::Wrt your post at 15:36: what is your purpose and who are you trying to persuade? And ok, perhaps [https://xkcd.com/386/ someone is wrong on the internet], but why is this an important battle to spend time on now? -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|^Talk]] 23:51, 15 March 2021 (UTC) == [[Menstrual cycle]] == Hi Colin, I would appreciate any advice you might have on this issue [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Menstrual_cycle&diff=prev&oldid=1011579837]. It's this "80%" claim (again). I have posted a paper there, which might help. Would it be for the best not to quote a percentage at all and just say "most"? Best regards. [[User:Graham Beards|Graham Beards]] ([[User talk:Graham Beards|talk]]) 09:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC) == About your comment at the PD talk == Hello. Thank you for providing comments on the proposed decision for the RexxS case. In reading your comments you mention about the suitability of other users to be administrators. While it's not a personal attack, I suggest that you alter your comment so that it doesn't mention specific editors. My reasoning is that the committee in the RexxS case is not examining the conduct of the editors you named, and as such detailing specific users isn't necessary when commenting on the proposed decision. Let me know if you have any questions, and in case you were not aware I am one of the case clerks for the RexxS case. [[User:Dreamy Jazz|Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">'''Jazz'''</i>]] ^{''[[User talk:Dreamy Jazz|talk to me]]'' &#124; ''[[Special:Contribs/Dreamy Jazz|my contributions]]''} 18:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC) :[[User:Dreamy Jazz|Dreamy Jazz]], I hope [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS/Proposed_decision&type=revision&diff=1013841797&oldid=1013840111&diffmode=source this edit] is satisfactory. -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|^Talk]] 19:07, 23 March 2021 (UTC) ::Thank you. It is. Happy editing, [[User:Dreamy Jazz|Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">'''Jazz'''</i>]] ^{''[[User talk:Dreamy Jazz|talk to me]]'' &#124; ''[[Special:Contribs/Dreamy Jazz|my contributions]]''} 21:08, 23 March 2021 (UTC) == WikiProject Medicine Newsletter - April 2021 == {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Newsletter/April 2021}} [[User:Ajpolino|Ajpolino]] ([[User talk:Ajpolino|talk]]) 02:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC) <!-- Message sent by User:Ajpolino@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Newsletter/Mailing_list&oldid=1015123429 --> == Thanks for William Lyon Mackenzie == Thanks for your help with the [[William Lyon Mackenzie]] article in March, specifically for your comments at the second PR. I have nominated the article for featured article status and I hope you will [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William Lyon Mackenzie/archive1|comment on the nomination here]]. Thanks again for your help preparing this article. [[User:Z1720|Z1720]] ([[User talk:Z1720|talk]]) 17:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC) == Person-first language == Just a note. I found your comments on the person-first discussion quite helpful; they certainly changed how I viewed the topic. Sorry you were upset by the discussion; nobody there seems to have been their best. Maybe one day the topic can be revisited when there's more evidence and all of us have kinder hearts. Wishing you well. [[User:Urve|<span style="color:#b02ca3;font-family:Courier">Urve</span>]] ([[User talk:Urve|talk]]) 03:00, 22 April 2021 (UTC) :[[User:Urve|Urve]] thanks very much for that comment. Yes, kinder hearts would be welcome. -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|^Talk]] 09:35, 22 April 2021 (UTC) ==DYK for Vaccine ingredients== {{ivmbox |image = Updated DYK query.svg |imagesize=40px |text = On [[Wikipedia:Recent_additions/2021/April#23 April 2021|23 April 2021]], '''[[:Template:Did you know|Did you know]]''' was updated with a fact from the article '''''[[Vaccine ingredients]]''''', which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ''... that an [[immunologic adjuvant]] is a '''[[Vaccine ingredients|vaccine ingredient]]''' that makes the immune response stronger and longer-lasting?'' The nomination discussion and review may be seen at [[Template:Did you know nominations/Vaccine ingredients]]. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page <small>([[User:Rjanag/Pageview stats|here's how]], [//pageviews.toolforge.org/?start=2021-04-13&end=2021-05-03&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Vaccine_ingredients Vaccine ingredients])</small>, and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to [[Wikipedia:Did you know/Statistics|the statistics page]]. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the [[:Template talk:Did you know|Did you know talk page]]. }}<!-- Template:UpdatedDYK --> &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 00:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC) == You might want to == ... follow up on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19&action=edit&section=8 <--this-->] --[[User:Skews Peas|Skews Peas]] ([[User talk:Skews Peas|talk]]) 16:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC) :[[User:Skews Peas|Skews Peas]], I'm not quite sure what you are suggesting? Is there a troublesome edit to investigate? Or are you suggesting I work on that article or that section (Immunopathology -- I know nothing). I'm so limited in my free time that I'd rather steer clear of contentious hot topics. -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|^Talk]] 16:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC) :Just sharing some [[sniglet|meticulosity]] with you. I've probably opened a can of worms anyway{{snd}}there are lots more such paragraphs in that article. Never mind. --[[User:Skews Peas|Skews Peas]] ([[User talk:Skews Peas|talk]]) 17:11, 23 April 2021 (UTC) == WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND == You seem bound and determined to win. The source is not WP:FRINGE, it is a legitimate by a scholar the you admit is "an expert in the field". By removing all weight for one expert who disagrees with a position you are engaging in a BATTLE rather than trying to improve the encyclopedia. <span style="font-family: Cambria;">[[User:Abductive|<span style="color: teal;">'''Abductive'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Abductive|reasoning]])</span> 15:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC) == WikiProject Medicine Newsletter - June 2021 == {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Newsletter/May 2021}} Thanks, [[User:Ajpolino|Ajpolino]] ([[User talk:Ajpolino|talk]]) 17:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC) <!-- Message sent by User:Ajpolino@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Newsletter/Mailing_list&oldid=1021828448 --> ==[[Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Plasma globe]]== <!-- comment to force linebreak --> {| align=center border=0 cellpadding=4 cellspacing=4 style="border: 1px solid #CC9; background-color: #cfc" |- |[[File:Plasma globe 60th.jpg|75px|center|]] |<div style="text-align:center;">'''An image created by you has been promoted to [[Wikipedia:Featured picture|featured picture]] status'''</div> Your image, '''[[:File:Plasma globe 60th.jpg]]''', was nominated on [[Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates]], gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at [[Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates]]. Thank you for your contribution! [[User:Armbrust|Armbrust]] ^{[[User talk:Armbrust|<span style="color: #E3A857;">The</span> <span style="color: #008000;">Homunculus</span>]]} 11:17, 7 June 2021 (UTC) |} == [[Dementia with Lewy bodies]] scheduled for TFA == This is to let you know that the [[Dementia with Lewy bodies]] article has been scheduled as [[WP:TFA|today's featured article]] for July 21, 2021. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at [[Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 21, 2021]], but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. For Featured Articles promoted recently, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point. We suggest that you watchlist [[Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors]] from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! [[User:Jimfbleak|<b style="font-family:Lucida;color:red">Jimfbleak</b>]] - [[User talk:Jimfbleak|<span style="font-family:arial;color:green"><i>talk to me?</i></span>]] 15:17, 14 June 2021 (UTC) == You're famous, lol. == [https://www.cnet.com/features/wikipedia-is-at-war-over-the-coronavirus-lab-leak-theory/ Check it out!] Looks like you got a mention ''and'' they quoted you saying something smart. '''[[User:JPxG|jp]]'''×'''[[User talk:JPxG|g]]''' 20:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC) == Re: RFCs and the lab leak-iverse == {{ping|WhatamIdoing}} and {{ping|Colin}}, just wanted to clarify what you meant by "{{tq|stop trying to write pandemic-related articles by RFC}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Biomedical_information&diff=1029712645&oldid=1029705237][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Biomedical_information&diff=1029881566&oldid=1029879886]". Do you mean "''like the [[Wikipedia_talk:Biomedical_information#RFC:_Disease_/_pandemic_origins.|BMI RFC]], with overall RFCs that try to have implications for all pandemic articles''" or "''RFCs period''" AKA "''using narrow RFCs to try and resolve individual disputes on pandemic pages''" is also not productive? Because, as far as I can determine, using RFCs is the only way to get anything to stick on particularly frustrating pages like [[Investigations into the origin of COVID-19]] and [[COVID-19 misinformation]]. Otherwise it's like a revert-revert party and BRD breaks down. I admit I only have 6ish years of experience on this site, and I'm still learning how certain things work, but that was my assessment of the situation. There's lots of [[WP:FRINGE]] users and also quasi-SPAs, and activist editors, who push one POV or another. It's easy to get drawn into the brawl, and I have on several occasions. I really see narrowly-worded narrowly-applied RFCs as the only way out of that cave. My understanding is that {{u|WhatamIdoing}}, you would say that RFCs can be useful in some contexts, but that {{u|Colin}}, you think RFCs are the problem here and are actively against consensus-building in these situations. Is that a fair characterization? If so, {{u|Colin}}, I empathize with your point greatly. I also wish it were easier. I wish that such consensus-building without RFCs were possible in these articles, but this reminds me quite a bit of [[WP:RANDY]]. You cannot play chess with someone who will just flip the board when they lose, and likewise, you cannot build consensus with people who are [[WP:NOTHERE]]. It is the nature of battlegrounding to get drawn in yourself. That's why it's so insidious.--[[User:Shibbolethink|<span style="color: black">Shibboleth</span><span style="color: maroon">ink</span>]] ^{([[User talk:Shibbolethink|♔]]} ^{[[Special:Contributions/Shibbolethink|♕]])} 00:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC) And please, take me quite seriously when I say:'''I am looking for any and all advice on how to deal with these contentious articles better.''' I really am all ears, and am interested in all perspectives. I would bet good money you have seen similarly contentious topics emerge before my time, and I would appreciate the wiki-expertise.--[[User:Shibbolethink|<span style="color: black">Shibboleth</span><span style="color: maroon">ink</span>]] ^{([[User talk:Shibbolethink|♔]]} ^{[[Special:Contributions/Shibbolethink|♕]])} 00:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC) :RFCs have been handled in a weird way (and maybe even in a [[WEIRD]] way) for COVID-related articles. I'm not sure how to label the effect, but it doesn't result in a small group of editors improving an article. It's more like a large group of less-experienced editors trying to vote a decision (any decision) into being so that we can enshrine that decision's exact wording as The Decision™, and then rush on to the next thing. :The voting in COVID-related articles has been so extreme that we were seriously talking at [[WT:RFC]] about enacting limits on how many RFCs any single editor could have open at the same time. :[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] recently expressed an important perspective on this question, and if you're serious about addressing this problem, you probably want to talk to him about the problems that RFCs can create, especially when most of the people in the discussion don't know as much about the subject as they think they do. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 02:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC) ::I suppose RfCs have [https://wikipediocracy.com/2014/05/19/how-to-control-a-topic/ long] been seen as a tool to wield when trying to control a topic. I'm with {{u|XOR'easter}}, who has written that the fuss around COVID topics is "the first time that I've genuinely feared that our line won't hold".[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=1026856035&oldid=1026849354] The RfC proliferation has now reached the point where we're breaking [[WP:DEM]]. [[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] ([[User talk:Alexbrn|talk]]) 07:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC) :::There are several issues, of which I'm sure [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] and the folks at [[WT:RFC]] can offer advice. The first is whether a publicly declared RFC is needed rather than a simple discussion on talk, or even it seems just making an edit and seeing if it sticks. The second is whether that RFC needs to be widely advertised. You may think that getting more eyeballs on the thing will help, but often those eyeballs don't actually read the preceding discussions (you had those, right?) and just jump in with an opinion. Everyone loves being asked their opinion and giving it. Wrt covid articles, that opinion is often mostly about scientists or journalists or the Chinese government, and not about article text and what reliable sources say. And nearly all folk there are pushing an agenda of some sort. And thirdly, the RFC almost always begins with a poll rather than a discussion. And we know [[Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion]]. :::This was particularly clear during the biomedical poll where a meme developed that "MEDRS is only about medical advice. It's that simple" and voters latched on to that as a very convenient way of justifying an oppose vote. I've seen it before on a poll about GDFL licence being inappropriate for photographs, where someone voted "A free licence is a free licence". This got endlessly repeated despite being rather mindless. Former British PM Theresa May used the same trick when she tired of Brexit voting, and repeated "Brexit is Brexit" to try to shut down discussion and complaints that the nuances might be causing problems. :::The poll started on MEDRS offers voters just two choices. I see that in the discussion someone has suggested perhaps we tweak the original text. While I still think that currently we are just better off without those sentences, it is this kind of "Ok, there are other options too" thing that will likely just get lost and buried under the votes. On a Wikipedia page, you can make edits, I can make edits and all these other people can make edits, and together we might develop some good text. Instead we have an RFC that consumes dozens of editors time and yet only offers two limited choices. Take it or leave it. Oppose or Support. Option 1 or Option 2. One side will lose. That isn't any way for people to figure out an approach that actually keeps everyone happy. :::I think it is ironic that editors who are clearly and demonstrably unable to edit collaboratively and work towards consensus are now pushing Wikipedia-wide guidelines around and trying (succeeding perhaps) to restrict them in order to win an argument. And to win an argument about something nobody actually knows the answer to. It's like the entire world decided to argue about who won the 2022 Eurovision Song Contest. It is both pathetic and rather worrisome, because I am worried that editors with covid blinkers on will end up claiming some new consensus that makes it harder to write good biomedical articles. :::It is partly for that reason that I tried to find some intermediate ground wrt the latest covid sequence deletion story. Because I think if editors in both sides continue to fight their political fights by citing WP:UPPERCASE at each other, then they will end up wrecking those policies and guidelines in order to get their way. :::Anyway, last night I posted a wikibreak notice and I'm still hoping to keep to it. So I wonder if perhaps someone could copy, shift or continue this discussion onto another person's talk page, so I don't keep getting pings. :::I'll leave you, for now, with some reading suggestions. I recently read ''"Conflicted: Why Arguments Are Tearing Us Apart and How They Can Bring Us Together"'' by Ian Leslie and thought it was really good and encourage editors in disputes to go get it and read it. And I've just finished ''"Think Again: The Power of Knowing What You Don't Know"'' by Adam Grant, which was also good, covering some similar ground, but I preferred the first book. I did like Grant's image of trying to dance with one's foe rather than fight them. Having read them, I don't want anyone to expect me to become some kind of expert mediator diplomat guru: I read them because I'm crap at this and want to be a bit better. -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|^Talk]] 09:22, 30 June 2021 (UTC) ::::{{u|Colin}} and others, Thank you, the advice is much appreciated and will do re: taking this to another venue.--[[User:Shibbolethink|<span style="color: black">Shibboleth</span><span style="color: maroon">ink</span>]] ^{([[User talk:Shibbolethink|♔]]} ^{[[Special:Contributions/Shibbolethink|♕]])} 12:41, 30 June 2021 (UTC) == Break == I'm taking a wikibreak. Please avoid posting here unless it is vital. Try [[WT:MED]] instead. -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|^Talk]] 09:22, 30 June 2021 (UTC) == WikiProject Medicine Newsletter - July 2021 == {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Newsletter/July 2021}} Thanks, [[User:Ajpolino|Ajpolino]] ([[User talk:Ajpolino|talk]]) 19:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC) <!-- Message sent by User:Ajpolino@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Newsletter/Mailing_list&oldid=1021828448 --> ==Thank you== Thank you for [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&curid=12936136&diff=1035385941&oldid=1035344594 this well-considered statement] at [[WP:AE]]. Your point about the BBC at one time "thinking 'balance' on topics like global warming or MMR meant that for every expert you interviewed, you had to have some weirdo too" made me laugh. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] &#124; [[User talk:Bishonen|tålk]] 10:50, 25 July 2021 (UTC). :[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] thanks. I don't know where you live, but this isn't just my personal opinion. It was a big cause of frustration to many for years. Their report is [https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/our_work/editorial_standards/impartiality/science_impartiality.html Review of impartiality and accuracy of the BBC's coverage of science]. One part reads {{tq|"should be more proactive in searching out information than at present and other areas should more fully reflect the scientific literature. I recommend that the BBC takes a less rigid view of “due impartiality” as it applies to science (in practice and not just in its guidelines) and takes into account the non‐contentious nature of some material and the need to avoid giving undue attention to marginal opinion."}} There really was a belief by some then that "impartiality" meant they had to consider both sides as equal valid and reasonable as though one was trying to be neutral wrt Labour vs Conservative politics. This report required they also consider "due weight", which is more like our policy. -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|^Talk]] 11:22, 25 July 2021 (UTC) ::Though the BBC still regularly fails in this.[https://www.thenational.scot/news/19456616.former-chief-blasts-bbc-promoting-misinformation-pandemic/] [[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] ([[User talk:Alexbrn|talk]]) 11:44, 25 July 2021 (UTC) {{u|Alexbrn}}, wow, that is ''very'' troubling, indeed. {{u|Colin}}, I also wanted to say, your comments on that AE were insightful, and are much appreciated, as is your level headed voice in many of those disputes! :) But I did also want to say, this is not the first time I've seen news organizations fail at this, and not just the BBC! "The view from nowhere" is an old foundational principle of news reporting, that comes from a ''simpler time'' (Pepperidge Farm remembers). I think it belongs in the trash bin of history. One of my favorite NPR programs, ''[[On The Media]]'' (from [[WNYC]]), has reported on this a lot. A few of the best segments if you haven't heard them: *[https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/segments/objectivity-in-journalism ''"Objectivity: What Is It Good For?"''] (3 February 2017) *[https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/segments/view-nowhere-on-the-media ''"The view from nowhere is a harmful myth"''] (2 April 2021) *[https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/segments/how-bad-faith-mobs-weaponize-objectivity-on-the-media ''"How bad faith mobs weaponize objectivity"''] (4 June 2021) {{ctop|bg=#C1F1E7|This reminds me of how some scientists try so hard to be "dispassionate" and "objective", instead of acknowledging their biases}} As an aside, this reminds me of how some scientists remove themselves from public discourse, to remain "dispassionate" & "objective," which is of course a farce, and only leads to more problems. We would be better off if more experts spent time weighing in, and less time in ivory tower labs, away from the riff raff. We should all <small>(scholars, journalists, lay people)</small> ''acknowledge our biases'' and operate with them in mind, instead of pretending they don't exist! That allows us to actually make real progress on areas where society as a whole is biased and out of touch. Writing scholarly papers is not enough, especially when nobody reads them! If scholars don't participate and only publish dispassionate non-societally-relevant articles, then that in and of itself, screws up how [[WP:DUE]] and [[WP:RSUW]] work. We need experts to write reviews and tell Wikipedia the scholarly view on these things. Peer review and editorial oversight will keep extremism in check. Similarly, all Wikipedians are biased, but it is our PAGs and RSes that keep us on our best behavior. Not the ''battling out'' of "equal parts" of POV editors, as some have suggested. I actually think extremist viewpoints make us all ''more extreme'', in a similar fashion to the shifting of the [[Overton window]]! There was an excellent essay published in ''Nature'' last year about how scientists are bad at this [https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-01266-z], that really fired me up about these issues, and led me to write these now-infamous Reddit posts [https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/gk6y95/covid19_did_not_come_from_the_wuhan_institute_of/] [https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/gehvui/why_do_viruses_often_come_from_bats_a_discussion/]. I still think it's important for experts to weigh in on public issues, and Wikipedia is probably one of the best ways to do that, hence why I'm here :). Of course this idea of scholarly participation in the public discourse also wasn't ''new'' to me, it was basically the sole subject of a graduation speech I gave at my PhD commencement in 2019, lol [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPXXKR4YxyE]. ''Time is a flat circle, and we keep comin' round the bend!'' {{cbot}} Sorry, I know that was a lil bit of soapboxing... Maybe I'll write a userspace essay about this instead of a screed plastered on Colin's talk page :)-- [[User:Shibbolethink|<span style="color: black">Shibboleth</span><span style="color: maroon">ink</span>]] ^{([[User talk:Shibbolethink|♔]]} ^{[[Special:Contributions/Shibbolethink|♕]])} 13:32, 25 July 2021 (UTC) :My comment is a bit late, but WP's "encyclopedic" style was often contrasted to "journalistic" style, the latter more prone to be a list of equal opinions/refutations/denials, with the former more a summary of what is due, while avoiding to rehash debates everytime it makes the news, except for major developments. IRT Shibbolethink's comment, some scientists also feel that it's part of their responsibily to participate to public education and some are of course also teaching at universities, while others will be happy with more technical or lab work and less public exposure. I personally think that this is fine. Then coming from those who write for the public and appear regularly in shows, is good, as well as misleading pop-science, unfortunately. Another issue is that if they accept invitations to "public debates" it may provide a public impression of legitimacy to people who want to make a show and pretend that there's an actual scientific debate on the aspects they would like to dismiss and that even prominent scientists are listening to them (anti-evolution apologists for instance)... —[[User:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#44a;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Paleo</span>]][[User talk:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#272;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Neonate</span>]] – 01:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC) :{{re|Shibbolethink}} The above reply is so late that I'll ping... and I forgot to mention that I liked the speech. —[[User:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#44a;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Paleo</span>]][[User talk:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#272;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Neonate</span>]] – 06:10, 6 August 2021 (UTC) == WikiProject Medicine Newsletter - August 2021 == {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Newsletter/August 2021}} Thanks, [[User:Ajpolino|Ajpolino]] ([[User talk:Ajpolino|talk]]) 02:29, 2 August 2021 (UTC) <!-- Message sent by User:Ajpolino@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Newsletter/Mailing_list&oldid=1035837013 --> == The name game == My intent wasn't to insult any British editor, but merely to point out that every time such a RFC or general discussion on such topics concerning the UK, are held. The result is always going to be the same. Just <u>too many</u> who oppose the usage of "British" in the intros & ''UK'' in the infoboxes. Vaze50, is only starting to realise that. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 14:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC) :[[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]], you were identifying editors as being "British" and suggesting they were collectively being both unreasonable and stubborn. It would be tempting for me to make a similar comment about non-British editors. But that sort of personal attack doesn't progress the argument in any way, other than to suggest that as a source of our differing views. I can't change being Scottish and you can't change being Canadian (I assume from your user page). I suppose we could go live in each other's countries for a few years to gain the opposite perspectives, that's not really a practical solution to trying to work out what Wikipedia should include in an infobox. With these kinds of debates, where editors have strong opinions, and don't seem minded at all to reach a consensus, it is often useful to see how other professional publications handle it. -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|^Talk]] 15:23, 15 August 2021 (UTC) ::There's never going to ever be a consensus for what Vaze50 proposes. He'd have about the same amount of success convincing American editors to use "Californian" or "Minnesotan"; Canadian editors to use "Manitoban" or "Prince Edward Islander". It just ain't gonna happen for him. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 15:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC) == WikiProject Medicine Newsletter - September 2021 == {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Newsletter/September 2021}} Thanks, [[User:Ajpolino|Ajpolino]] ([[User talk:Ajpolino|talk]]) 20:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC) <!-- Message sent by User:Ajpolino@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Newsletter/Mailing_list&oldid=1043080865 --> == CEE meeting == I think you might appreciate this talk (~8 minutes) from the recent [[m:CEE]] online meeting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNeXoSou2h4&t=6694s [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 04:20, 9 November 2021 (UTC) :[[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]], was there a particular presentation, such as the first one? That was certainly provocative. -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|^Talk]] 11:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC) ::The timestamp in the link should skip you straight to Łukasz's presentation, which opens with [[Conway's law]]. It is an interesting idea, isn't it? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 17:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC) :::I have some deja vu about the comment that a Wikipedian insisted on the food that event organisers should offer. I'm not sure what best describes Wikipedias social model, but I agree it isn't a fit for an organisation or company. -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|^Talk]] 12:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC) == WT:MED == Colin, I am iPad typing, not home and having a hard time keeping up. Could you please have a look at WT:MED? [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 20:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC) :I would rather go back to my garden then to have to conduct a community-wide RFC to deal with something that never should have happened. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 15:21, 14 November 2021 (UTC) == Regarding your question on the Medicine Wikiproject talk page == [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Remove Google Scholar and Books|Regarding this question]], I've only written [[N-glycosyltransferase]], [[RVxP motif]] and [[Subgenual organ]], none of which are "medicine" ''per se''. [[User:Jo-Jo Eumerus|Jo-Jo Eumerus]] ([[User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus|talk]]) 10:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC) == ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message == <table class="messagebox " style="border: 1px solid #AAA; background: ivory; padding: 0.5em; width: 100%;"> <tr><td style="vertical-align:middle; padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">[[File:Scale of justice 2.svg|40px]]</td><td>Hello! Voting in the '''[[WP:ACE2021|2021 Arbitration Committee elections]]''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2021|end}}-1 day}}. All '''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021#Election timeline|eligible users]]''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The [[WP:ARBCOM|Arbitration Committee]] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration|Wikipedia arbitration process]]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose [[WP:BAN|site bans]], [[WP:TBAN|topic bans]], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy|arbitration policy]] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021/Candidates|the candidates]] and submit your choices on the '''[[Special:SecurePoll/vote/{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2021|poll}}|voting page]]'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>[[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 00:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)</small> </td></tr> </table> <!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2021/Coordination/MM/01&oldid=1056562944 --> == Invitation to take part in a survey about medical topics on Wikipedia == Dear fellow editor, I am Piotr Konieczny, a sociologist of new media at Hanyang University (and [[User:Piotrus]] on Wikipedia). I would like to better understand Wikipedia's volunteers who edit medical topics, many associated with the WikiProject Medicine, and known to create some of the highest quality content on Wikipedia. I hope that the lessons I can learn from you that I will present to the academic audience will benefit both the WikiProject Medicine (improving your understanding of yourself and helping to promote it and attract new volunteers) and the wider world of medical volunteering and academia. Open access copy of the resulting research will be made available at WikiProject's Medicine upon the completion of the project. All questions are optional. The survey is divided into 4 parts: 1 - Brief description of yourself; 2 - Questions about your volunteering; 3 - Questions about WikiProject Medicine and 4 - Questions about Wikipedia's coverage of medical topics. Please note that by filling out this questionnaire, you consent to participate in this research. The survey is anonymous and all personal details relevant to your experience will be kept private and will not be transferred to any third party. I appreciate your support of this research and thank you in advance for taking the time to participate and share your experiences! If you have any questions at all, please feel free to contact me at my Wikipedia user page or through my email listed on the survey page (or by Wikipedia email this user function). The survey is accessible through the [https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfJsrDRQBhKpajoqdFtKIKylYZ5kWQDjvvJm207FJvZ1UEjRg/viewform?usp=sf_link LINK HERE]. Piotr Konieczny<br/> Associate Professor<br/> Hanyang University<br/> <span style="font-size:85%">''If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from [[User:Piotrus/Mass message senders/Shell-0086|the mailing list]].''</span> [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 22:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC) <!-- Message sent by User:Nnadigoodluck@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Piotrus/Mass_message_senders/Shell-0086&oldid=1060173686 --> == Assange and BBC == Can't blame you unwatching! :-) But as to the BBC and Guardian, media critique sites have noticed that too, see [https://www.medialens.org/2020/none-of-it-reported-how-corporate-media-buried-the-assange-trial/] for the UK and [[Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting]] have reported a few times on the same sort of thing in the US. The BBC have never mentioned Thordarson's recanting of his testimony which underlies most of the US case, and I don't think it has mentioned the CIA planning to kidnap or murder him either. The Guardian has mentioned both eventually at least. [[User:NadVolum|NadVolum]] ([[User talk:NadVolum|talk]]) 18:37, 16 December 2021 (UTC) :[[User:NadVolum|NadVolum]], you cite a source whose purpose is to right-great-wrongs, as they see it. WEIGHT isn't interested in why sources don't cover some stories, and it isn't up to us to try to argue for Wikipedia to give more coverage than reliable sources do. Editors who are passionate about a story, as many on that talk page seem to be, usually have a different sense of its importance to neutral people. I don't want to get drawn into the politics of it all, which generally seems to be about being deeply unpleasant about those one disagrees with, and more interested in finding ways to misunderstand an analogy than to understand the other person's point. -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|^Talk]] 18:53, 16 December 2021 (UTC) ::I understand that and I'm not asking for anything like that. I was just pointing out that your argument from lack of coverage in the BBC is wrong. If you read [[WP:WEIGHT]] it does not require coverage in corporate media sources, only decent coverage in reliable ones. If you went by the BBC you'd probably only know that he and Stella Moris are hoping to get married and that the court decided he could be extradited. There are other reliable sources which cover things in more detail. [[User:NadVolum|NadVolum]] ([[User talk:NadVolum|talk]]) 19:03, 16 December 2021 (UTC) :::[[User:NadVolum|NadVolum]] I don't think the lack of coverage, and buried coverage in the BBC and Guardian are irrelevant: they indicate a concern. A full analysis of WEIGHT looks at all reliable sources (and really, we shouldn't be including the tabloids at all). That you have a publication that claims the BBC and Guardian are somehow deliberately not covering the topic, isn't relevant to WEIGHT. One problem with googling for sources is that one can find any minor factoid if you search for it, but you can't find publications that don't mention the factoid (for whatever reason). So it isn't enough to say a, b, c and d all mention some fact, when you find those sources with Google. You have to deliberately pick some other reliable sources that you might expect to cover it, and look for it there. That's why I'm concerned about this topic's weight. In the end, editors tend to over-weight recent current affair topics, and often forget to revisit it in a year or two when nobody anywhere is mentioning it. Remember too this is an international encyclopaedia, so you need to check the US media at least. -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|^Talk]] 19:54, 16 December 2021 (UTC) ::::I was interested in your choosing the BBC and the Guardian as those two are well known for this sort of thing as shown by that reference I gave above, the BBC for its strategic omissions, much more than others, and the Guardian for its strong bias against Assange after some trouble between them and Assange some years ago, though lately it has got a bit better. I wondered why you chose them in particular. All the news sources given in the middle of that discussion get the green light at [[WP:RSP]] and yet you wanted even more. Please just follow what [[WP:WEIGHT]] actually says. Doing what you say makes Wikipedia an unreliable government or corporate source rather than a reliable encyclopaedia - basically you are filtering to accentuate government and corporate bias. See [https://fair.org/home/key-assange-witness-recants-with-zero-corporate-media-coverage/] about what you are supporting. Wikipedia has an article about it at [[Media bias]] and [[Media_bias_in_the_United_States#Corporate_power]] is quite relevant too as it shows how it happens - read what George Orwell said in the 'pro-government' section there about England! [[User:NadVolum|NadVolum]] ([[User talk:NadVolum|talk]]) 23:52, 16 December 2021 (UTC) :::::I chose The Guardian as that's my newspaper (like, I actually pay for it) and The BBC as that's a politically neutral free news source for the UK. The Guardian is owned by a trust, so hardly a "corporate". I'm not aware that the BBC is now Pravada, hmm. You seem happy with Al Jazeera, which is [https://www.aljazeera.com/about-us funded in part by the Qatari government]. The Telegraph is owned by two billionaires. LBC is the website of a London radio station, so hardly my first choice, and owned by a not quite billionaire family. I don't know about the Sydney Morning Herald, but if one has to randomly pick a newspaper from the other side of the world, when there are other English speaking news outlets.. If there is doubt that the story has WEIGHT, then the solution is to find more good sources as evidence, not to dig up conspiracy theories as to why the BBC and Guardian are 'suppressing' the news. The Fair.org website say "We expose neglected news stories". The problem is [[WP:WEIGHT]] and [[WP:RGW]] require "reported in mainstream media", not "ok, it is neglected by major news sites but it should be covered on Wikipedia because those sites are biased". :::::The problem with the Assange discussion is that editors are arguing from a position they have already firmly taken, which is human, but it is a waste of time to argue with closed minds. -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|^Talk]] 08:59, 17 December 2021 (UTC) ::::::I see you have been on Wikipedia since 2006 and yet you still use your internal feelings rather than external measures. The good thing I have noticed in the Wikipedia policies is they try and get away from personal feelings and class anything based on them as original research. You chose the BBC to measure Assange against, why? because you thought if it was important enough the BBC would cover it? If you check the BBC they have had hardly any coverage apart from the conclusions of the trials and that he's engaged to Stella Moris. Do you really think all the other stuff in the aricle is conspiracy theory because it is based on other reliable sources? And by the way he is Australian and that's why the Sydney Morning Herard gets interested. Wikipedia is not a British only or American only publication. Those sources I gave about the behaviour of the media are reputable media critique sources. [[Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting]] is widely respected and referred to, it can be considered biased but it gets the basic facts right. the British site [[Media Lens]] has not been around so long and is more limited but the article has a number of points about BBC coverage. Personally I think very highly of the BBC and the Guardian, just they have some very real biases and limitations, one can consider them as blind spots. [[User:NadVolum|NadVolum]] ([[User talk:NadVolum|talk]]) 17:11, 17 December 2021 (UTC) :::::::Could you point me to the place on Wikipedia where The Guardian and BBC News are now considered unreliable biased sources of current-affair stories, and can't be considered when judging [[WP:WEIGHT]]? I don't think my opinion that these are respected mainstream sources is just "internal feelings" rather than based on "external measures": both regularly win awards for their journalism. Are you really trying to claim LBC is a more reliable source for politics or following court cases than those two? Sounds more like you are cherry-picking sources that agree with you or give importance to your topic, and suddenly [[The Daily Telegraph|the right-wing organ of two billionaire brothers]] is ok but The Guardian is "corporate media". That a Qatari-funded Al Jazeera is ok, but BBC News is a "government source". These are all [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources|generally considered to be reliable]]. We can't really start excluding heavyweight sources like these just because someone somewhere thinks Assange isn't getting the press he deserves. I think all these media sources have their good and bad points but by combining them all we approximate to mainstream consensus. For example, I'm sure The Guardian gives more weight to positive stories about and the opinions of Labour MPs and The Daily Telegraph is similarly weighted to Conservative MPs. But we can't start excluding one for a story about X just because we are unhappy with their view of X. -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|^Talk]] 17:48, 17 December 2021 (UTC) ::::::::I never said they were unreliable sources even for Assange. That the US site fair.org sometimes criticizes the BBC and the Guardian is more a sign of how they are generally held in high regard. However you used the absence of coverage on the BBC site as a reason for doubting other reliable sources which is not in line with [[WP:WEIGHT]]. That says "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources". Saying that another source you pick doesn't cover something as a reason for doubting others is simply your own original research and has no support in policy and leads to silliness and bias. All the sources given in the middle of that discussion are marked green in [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources]]. They don't go in for deliberate falsehoods. This article from fair.org has an explanation of what happens [https://fair.org/home/the-incredible-belief-that-corporate-ownership-does-not-influence-media-content/]. [[User:NadVolum|NadVolum]] ([[User talk:NadVolum|talk]]) 23:28, 17 December 2021 (UTC) :::::::::Those sources are reliable for reporting what his fiancée claims. Most of them, however, do not go as far as stating Assange had a stroke, in their own voice, unattributed. I mention the BBC/Guardian for WEIGHT purposes. Do you agree that if we are to assess the weight of a matter (whether to give it coverage and how much) then we need to deliberately look at a decent sample of reliable sources to see what they say (if anything). You can't determine weight of a marginal point just by Googling as that is biased towards those site that do give it coverage and particularly those who give it extensive coverage (headlines). All I did was go to two natural sources for me, my own newspaper and a national neutral broadcaster, to see what they said. That the BBC didn't cover it and The Guardian buried it is just a concern, not the last word. They just add to the accumulated data we can use to assess WEIGHT. I don't believe sites like fair.org or Media Lens should be taken into account to dismiss sites when doing this weight analysis, and I think you'd need to get some site-wide consensus for that if you want to keep arguing that point. I think it is better to accept that all sources have their biases and blind spots and that's why we pick a selection of mainstream media sources, rather than just two, say. I remain confused why you keep trying to teach me about corporate news ownership being bad, when [https://www.theguardian.com/gmg/2015/jul/23/faqs my paper is owned by a trust for that very reason]. That's why I pay a subscription, to maintain a newspaper with [https://www.theguardian.com/the-scott-trust/2015/jul/26/the-scott-trust those values]. :::::::::I'm more interested in generally how we determine whether to include some fact, than the particular issues of the Assange bio. I've seen how politics affects the covid discussions, and it can be very hard to have a reasonable argument about policy or guideline or editing, because every inch one gives one way or another is used to determine winners and losers in a political battle. There's a huge pressure to include current news stories, and hard to argue against a list of google results all repeating those stories. People want to include or censor, to juxtapose or separate facts to make their own political points. When policy and guideline is just then used as a weapon in a political fight, it gets a bit tiresome for those who aren't interested in the battle, and sometimes it can be quite concerning if those policies and guidelines start being altered or reinterpreted by one side. -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|^Talk]] 10:15, 18 December 2021 (UTC) ::::::::::As to "Do you agree that if we are to assess the weight of a matter (whether to give it coverage and how much) then we need to deliberately look at a decent sample of reliable sources to see what they say (if anything)", no that is wrong and in contradiction to [[WP:WEIGHT]]. Your looking at the BBC site for weight is wrong because it omits important things which are included in the article and are included in other reliable sources. Never mind that [[WP:WEIGHT]] applies to individual things as well. We are agreed that it should be attributed to Stella Moris, however the idea that she might be telling outright lies would need good sources as she is a lawyer. Also she said he had an MRI test and was on stroke medicine, though that is only in yellow listed sources not the green ones I see no good reason to doubt it. I was not dismissing the BBC or Guardian. I was saying the [[WP:WEIGHT]] policy is a good one and should not be ignored. If WP:WEIGHT is followed then there is a reasonable guard against corporate bias like in the BBC or the antagonism in the Guardian. I want that editors on Wikipedia prefer Wikipedias policies rather than prejudices gained from their favourite sites. As to the Guardian see [[David Leigh (journalist)]] and consider how much stupidity or enmity it takes to publish an encrytion key to unredacted leaks, that has been the basis of a lot of Assanges troubles, and he called Assange a reckless amateur! He also put in a very damaging statement in his book with [[Luke Harding]] about Assange saying "They're informants, they deserve to die" about Afghan informants at a dinner which is denied in a sworn affadavit by a journalist from Der Spiegel who was there. Of course only David Leigh is normally quoted not any evidence it might be false. [[User:NadVolum|NadVolum]] ([[User talk:NadVolum|talk]]) 14:46, 18 December 2021 (UTC) :::::::::::I'm just not understanding your WEIGHT argument and don't know how better to frame my position without repeating. Arguments like someone is either right or is "telling outright lies" aren't helpful. People can be wrong without lying. They can misunderstand, they can repeat things with more confidence than they were told, they can see cause-effect (e.g. that the stroke was caused by stress) when that may not be the cause. We really aren't as Wikipedians supposed to be judging whether something is true based on whether someone claims he had this or that test or is on this or that medicine. We go with how our reliable sources judge it. They go no further than attribution to a named non-neutral source. It isn't really important to me why they do it or whether it is justified in your opinion, it just is what it is. :::::::::::NadVolum, I unwatched the Assange talk page because people were being nasty rather than arguing with respect. The first sentence of your post at 17:11 yesterday is just an insult really. I think that when judging the [[WP:WEIGHT]] of a UK current-affairs story, then it would be reasonable to include BBC News and The Guardian among the selection of sources examined (of which many others were already listed). I'm quite sure you won't find many editors who think that is just a preposterous idea that they label me so "prejudiced" that I don't follow Wikipedia policies. Perhaps it is better if we agree to disagree and you argue instead with someone who cares about the Assange bio. -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|^Talk]] 15:18, 18 December 2021 (UTC) :Well as I said I sympathize with you going because of the warring going on there. As to insulting you, well I did consider whether I should bother coming here as I viewed it as like [https://xkcd.com/386/] and you seemed to view everyone there as cranks with axes to grind so any communication would be very problematic. But you did seem to value the idea of a neutral point of view. I will outline the basic algorithm of how I interpret the Wikipedia policies about deciding on stuff toinclude in an article: # Something about the subject crops up. # Look for sources about it including ones that actually say something different. # Rate the sources found by reliability according to Wikipedia guidelnes. # Apply WP:WEIGHT, maybe more than one point of view should be included if anything is. # Check the rating of the first few against the overall rating of souces in the article. # If it has a higher rating then probably a good candidate since it was noticed. # If it of about the same level then try to include if seems reasonable otherwise discuss. # If a bit lower discuss if it seems reasonably important. # If much lower discuss only if it seems very important. Someone else may well have a different take or be able to find better sources. :I see you as applying another filter, check favourite sources and see if they say anything, and take that as the weight. That's what I'm saying is as far as I know in contradiction to Wikipedia policy. For instance Yahoo published an aricle about the CIA planning to kidnap or murder Assange. This has never been covered on the BBC (except in its Somali language version). Some information about this came out before the Yahoo revelation at the extradition hearing and was covered in the Guardian [https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/sep/30/us-intelligence-sources-discussed-poisoning-julian-assange-court-told]. This was placed in the article at the time even though the BBC ignore it and it has ignored the Yahoo revelations too. Most of the green listed sources at [[WP:RSP]] ignored the original story and only said something when the Yahoo story came out. Pick the wrong ones and it would have been below your radar. I dont believe it is an unimportant story. Use the algorithm above and I think at least one has a decent chance of producing a reasonably unbiased article. [[User:NadVolum|NadVolum]] ([[User talk:NadVolum|talk]]) 22:52, 18 December 2021 (UTC) ::When have I ever said "take that as the weight", that my "favourite sources" are "the weight". These are two important sources wrt UK current affairs. They should be included '''along with the others''' that were listed, to determine weight. I'm really not getting how that is in any way against policy or controversial on Wikipedia. The other sources that were listed all have their flaws too (local radio station, funded by Qatar, desperately reliant on pop-up and lame adverts for funding of their few remaining journalists (the Independent), owned by billionaires). My point about WP:WEIGHT is you have to look at many mainstream sources, even ones that you feel aren't giving your story the importance you think it deserves. NadVolum, if you disagree, I think it is probably better if you try to argue on a forum about policy change or questions, rather than my talk page. I'm not at all interested in Assange. -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|^Talk]] 23:47, 18 December 2021 (UTC) :::Well this has gone on long enough and I don't think it has gone anywhere or led to a greater understanding for either of us. So I think the best thing to do is just stop. I'm sorry about that. [[User:NadVolum|NadVolum]] ([[User talk:NadVolum|talk]]) 21:29, 19 December 2021 (UTC) == Remember stitching this back in 2013? == <gallery mode=packed heights=400px> File:H. M. Brock - Gilbert and Sullivan - D'Oyly Carte Opera Company Ruddigore revival 1921 - original.jpg File:H. M. Brock - Gilbert and Sullivan - D'Oyly Carte Opera Company Ruddigore revival 1921.jpg </gallery> Finally have both the skills and a sufficiently powerful computer to do this. FPC feels a lot quieter nowadays, but.... <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' ^{([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])}_{Has about 7.8% of all [[WP:FP|FPs]]}</span> 15:55, 9 May 2022 (UTC) :[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam]], well done on your improved version. I guess it doesn't need the "stitching help" comment on this version. -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|^Talk]] 17:05, 11 May 2022 (UTC) ::I don't think there's any reason not to give thanks for help. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' ^{([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])}_{Has about 7.8% of all [[WP:FP|FPs]]}</span> 17:11, 11 May 2022 (UTC) ==[[Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Ruddigore]]== <!-- comment to force linebreak --> {| align=center border=0 cellpadding=4 cellspacing=4 style="border: 1px solid #CC9; background-color: #cfc" |- |[[File:H. M. Brock - Gilbert and Sullivan - D'Oyly Carte Opera Company Ruddigore revival 1921.jpg|75px|center|]] |<div style="text-align:center;">'''An image created by you has been promoted to [[Wikipedia:Featured picture|featured picture]] status'''</div> Your image, '''[[:File:H. M. Brock - Gilbert and Sullivan - D'Oyly Carte Opera Company Ruddigore revival 1921.jpg]]''', was nominated on [[Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates]], gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at [[Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates]]. Thank you for your contribution! [[User:Armbrust|Armbrust]] ^{[[User talk:Armbrust|<span style="color: #E3A857;">The</span> <span style="color: #008000;">Homunculus</span>]]} 02:16, 29 May 2022 (UTC) |} == Featured picture scheduled for POTD == Hi Colin, This is to let you know that [[:File:Old Royal Naval College 2017-08-06.jpg]], a [[Wikipedia:Featured pictures|featured picture]] you uploaded, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Picture of the day|picture of the day]] (POTD) for October 25, 2022. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at [[Template:POTD/2022-10-25]]. If you have any concerns, please place a message at [[Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day]]. Thank you! --[[User:Ahecht|Ahecht]] ([[User talk:Ahecht|<span style="color:#FFF;background:#04A;display:inline-block;padding:1px;vertical-align:-.3em;font:bold 50%/1 sans-serif;text-align:center">TALK<br />PAGE</span>]]) 18:39, 8 June 2022 (UTC) <!-- Template:NotifyPOTD --> <div style="margin-top:4px; border:1px solid #ddcef2; background:#faf5ff; overflow:auto;"><div style="margin:0.6em 0.4em 0.1em;">{{POTD/Day|2022-10-25|excludeheader=yes}}</div></div> == WikiProject Medicine Newsletter - August 2022 == {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Newsletter/August 2022}} [[User:Ajpolino|Ajpolino]] ([[User talk:Ajpolino#top|talk]]) 21:28, 26 August 2022 (UTC) <!-- Message sent by User:Ajpolino@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Newsletter/Mailing_list&oldid=1105820507 --> ==Editor of the Week== {| style="border: 2px solid lightgray; background-color: #fafafa" color:#aaa" |rowspan="2" valign="middle" | [[File:Editor of the week barnstar.svg|100px]] |rowspan="2" | |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em; color:#606570" |'''Editor of the Week''' |- |style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 2px solid lightgray" |Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as [[WP:Editor of the Week|Editor of the Week]] in recognition of your great contributions! <span style="color:#a0a2a5">(courtesy of the [[WP:WER|<span style="color:#80c0ff">Wikipedia Editor Retention Project</span>]])</span> |} [[User:Buster7]] submitted the following nomination for [[WP:Editor of the Week|Editor of the Week]]: :Colin joined many years ago when WikiPedia was being invented. Over the years he has created 268 pages/articles including a continuing commitment to [[Ketogenic diet]], created the [[:commons:Commons:Photo challenge|Commons:Photo challenge]], created [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)]] (aka [[WP:MEDRS|MEDRS]]), won [[commons:Commons:Picture of the Year/2016|Picture of the Year 2016]], wrote the essay [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not YouTube|Wikipedia is not YouTube]] ([[WP:NOTYOUTUBE]]) and has [[commons:Category:Featured_pictures_by_User:Colin|89 Featured Pictures on Commons]]. He is reknowned for his collegial helpful input and talk space demeanor. His balanced and neutral approach is a model for all editors. You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week: <pre>{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}</pre> {{WP:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Infobox | recipient = Colin | week_start_date = September 3, 2022 | mini_bio = Reknowned for his collegial, helpful input and talk space demeanor and for having a balanced and neutral approach that is a model for all editors. Colin joined many years ago and has created 268 pages/articles, the [[:commons:Commons:Photo challenge|Commons:Photo challenge]] and [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)]] (aka [[WP:MEDRS|MEDRS]]). He won [[commons:Commons:Picture of the Year/2016|Picture of the Year 2016]] and wrote the essay [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not YouTube|Wikipedia is not UTube]] | recognized_for = [[commons:Category:Featured_pictures_by_User:Colin|89 Featured Pictures on Commons]] | notable_works = [[Ketogenic diet]] | image = Jubilee and Munin, Ravens, Tower of London 2016-04-30.jpg | caption = ''' 2 Tower of London ravens discuss Colin's attributes''' | image_size = 200px | nomination_page = }} Thanks again for your efforts! &#8213;[[User:Buster7|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Buster7'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Buster7|<span style="color:#AAA;">&#9742;</span>]] 18:07, 3 September 2022 (UTC) :Congrats @[[User:Colin|Colin]]! You deserve it! You're an invaluable and irreplaceable part of the project. —&nbsp;[[User:Shibbolethink|<span style="color: black">Shibboleth</span><span style="color: maroon">ink</span>]] ^{([[User talk:Shibbolethink|♔]]} ^{[[Special:Contributions/Shibbolethink|♕]])} 20:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC) ::[[User:Buster7|Buster7]] and [[User talk:Shibbolethink|Shibbolethink]] thank you both for your kind words and consideration, and the funny caption on the photo. I trust the ravens are saying nice things about me. I hope I've been valuable over the years, though I don't think it is good for anyone to think they are irreplaceable. Well, I hope my wife thinks I'm irreplaceable! -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|^Talk]] 19:41, 4 September 2022 (UTC) == WikiProject Medicine Newsletter - October 2022 == {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Newsletter/September 2022}} [[User:Ajpolino|Ajpolino]] ([[User talk:Ajpolino#top|talk]]) 03:32, 4 October 2022 (UTC) <!-- Message sent by User:Ajpolino@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Newsletter/Mailing_list&oldid=1112958336 --> ==Notice== [[File:Information icon4.svg|link=|25px|alt=Information icon]] There is currently a discussion at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents]] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.<!--Template:Discussion notice--><!--Template:ANI-notice--> [[User:Psychologist Guy|Psychologist Guy]] ([[User talk:Psychologist Guy|talk]]) 20:57, 4 October 2022 (UTC) :[[User:Psychologist Guy|Psychologist Guy]], thanks for your post at AN/I. I appreciate the apology you offered. Not a lot of people do that. I'm posting here because your talk page has messages from that other user, who I wish would take his own advice not to "cross paths" with me ever again. I think if you felt it necessary to avoid editors at [[WP:MED]], then that would be a shame. We are on the same side, after all. :We seem to have got off on the wrong foot. I was trying to get you to stop posting more and more BLP violations and telling you to "go be insulting elsewhere" was clumsy and didn't work anyway. And there was no need to refer to your comments about plant-based anti-cancer research (even if off-topic) as "plant based quackery". So I apologise. :BLP rules on talk pages are not just there to keep things civil and respectful but also to stop you ending up like [[Simon Singh]]. He had the Guardian newspaper to help with costs, whereas you and I will not get any help from WMF if we write something careless about a real living person. I find [[WP:WEIGHT]] (which [[WP:MEDRS]] puts into practice) useful for arguing whether to include or eliminate material without having to actually defend or attack primary research or researchers. Does the secondary literature in reliable sources mention this research or its findings? If it does, then we can include it in proportion, if it doesn't then we don't. It makes it "somebody else's problem" to determine what is quackery and what is sound. :I see from your contribs you have an interest in biographies and there's an overlap with the history section of [[ketogenic diet]]. I think it is fascinating that the source of this diet was a fasting diet, which worked but not for the reasons its promoters claimed, and not as often as its promoters claimed. And this was then taken seriously by the most eminent neurologists of the day and developed into a dietary therapy at a time when there were no effective medicines. :I once asked a researcher why the KD was being investigated for all sorts of incurable neurological conditions. He said you have to remember that we still don't actually know why the KD works for epilepsy, so having a sound theory as to why it might work for Alzheimer's, say, isn't necessarily required. Some epilepsy drugs work but not for the reasons they were designed or selected. And the same is true of some other drugs that affect the mind. We are just so ignorant. He said that few drugs and therapies get into the brain and fundamentally change how brain cells work, and the KD does that. And the important thing is, like epilepsy in the 1920s, these conditions and cancers really are still incurable to medicine, so it is worth trying. -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|^Talk]] 09:20, 9 October 2022 (UTC) :: Hi Colin I mostly try and stay away from article talk-pages so it was rare for me to have left that rant on the talk-page to begin with. I am just willing to put it down to a mistake from me and move on. I have broken the BLP policy, made a mistake as they say and I am willing to admit that and move on. What I really use this website for is to create historical biographies. I mostly create biographies for deceased people. I am more interested in diets from a historical point of view. The history is more interesting to me. I have written biographies for historical individuals who promoted all kinds of diets including low-carb, meat-only, paleo, vegan, vegetarian, fruitarian, fasting etc. What's interesting to me is that many of the modern health claims being promoted for many of these diets have been promoted in the past but much of this history is often forgotten. A lot of these health claims (curing cancer etc) have been around for over 100 years yet todays influencers say similar things just brushed up with modern language. I agree with you about KD being beneficial for epilepsy (there is even some evidence for improved cognitive behaviour) but I am skeptical about other conditions. There is an issue of industry funding and motives behind some of the modern researchers but I agree it is not up to me to be doing personal research on the researchers that can run into BLP violations. I have apologized for that and won't be doing that anymore on this website, I think we should just let the references speak for themselves. I will stay away from that article but I will add articles for historical individuals associated with it where possible. There are two recent reviews here that you might want to add to the ketogenic article [https://academic.oup.com/nutritionreviews/article-abstract/80/10/2064/6582803?redirectedFrom=fulltext], [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35027683/]. :: On the ketogenic article there is a man named Hugh William Conklin. Who is that man, when did he live, do any photographs exist of him? It seems nobody on the internet has written a biography of him. I am interested in those sort of questions and doing research into forgotten people. It seems he wasn't just promoting fasting but some other ideas as well. I would like to create an article for that guy. I don't want to make any enemies with experienced users on this website (as you say we are all trying to improve this place), life is too short to be making complications with people. It's easier just get a long and help each other. I dont know much about the user "Tryptofish" but whoever they are I like them and they done good work on here. I understand it's not possible to get on with everyone on here so users in the end just avoid each other, I am ok with that as well. [[User:Psychologist Guy|Psychologist Guy]] ([[User talk:Psychologist Guy|talk]]) 18:39, 10 October 2022 (UTC) :::There's no need for you to avoid KD. Just remember that it is a featured article so best to discuss radical changes first. And be aware the diet is often used today in children who have failed on half a dozen drugs already, so this is a highly refractory group who aren't as likely to respond to any treatment or even spontaneously get better. Indeed, some are heading in the other direction. I think clinical guidelines (which make use of systematic reviews), are ideal for helping us interpret the science in a clinically relevant way. :::I don't have access to the full text for those two papers. I may have to reach out to some wiki friends to see if they can help. This is a frustrating limitation to my editing ability on Wikipedia. A further help you could do on KD is identify if we are citing any weak journals, as I'm not familiar enough with the publication debates. :::I don't know much about Conklin and suspect my epilepsy papers will only cover him briefly where he sparks off the ketogenic diet story. The KD article has that newspaper clipping. When I started on Wikipedia, I also created a bunch of historical bio articles. Some are related to the [[Timeline of tuberous sclerosis]] that I wrote. :::*[[William Gordon Lennox]] :::*[[Stanley Cobb]] :::*[[Frederic A. Gibbs]] :::*[[Heinrich Vogt (neurologist)|Heinrich Vogt]] :::*[[Édouard Brissaud]] :::*[[John James Pringle]] :::*[[François Henri Hallopeau]] :::*[[Manuel Rodríguez Gómez]] :::*[[Christian Archibald Herter (physician)|Christian Archibald Herter]] :::*[[Félix Balzer]] :::*[[Émile Leredde]] :::*[[Alfred Walter Campbell]] :::*[[Jan van der Hoeve]] :::Many of these people were very important in their day, yet Wikipedia seems to be better at documenting random football players. [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|^Talk]] 09:17, 11 October 2022 (UTC) == ILAE Wikiprdia Epilepsy project == You have made contributions to Tuberous sclerosis in the past. You are most welcome to join and help us on the Epilepsy articles as they get edited or you may want to contribute some edits or create stub articles. [[User:NandanYardi|NandanYardi]] ([[User talk:NandanYardi|talk]]) 18:48, 7 October 2022 (UTC) @colin,If needed kindly reach out for stub article topics not existing on wikipedia [[User:NandanYardi|NandanYardi]] ([[User talk:NandanYardi|talk]]) 18:51, 7 October 2022 (UTC) [[User:NandanYardi|NandanYardi]], thanks. :I'll see what I can do. Hmm, I should have another look at the [[tuberous sclerosis]] article to update it. -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|^Talk]] 19:21, 7 October 2022 (UTC) Sure ..welcome [[User:NandanYardi|NandanYardi]] ([[User talk:NandanYardi|talk]]) 16:13, 10 October 2022 (UTC) == COVID: get well soon == Feel better soon! We both had COVID in July, took [[paxlovid]], and were well the next day. I hope you do as well! 14:53, 12 October 2022 (UTC) == Insert email notification sound here! == {{You've got mail|dashlesssig=[[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 18:24, 26 October 2022 (UTC)}} == Thanks == Just want to say that I appreciate you fighting the good fight. Cheers. [[User:Dumuzid|Dumuzid]] ([[User talk:Dumuzid|talk]]) 20:33, 27 October 2022 (UTC) == AN/I notice == [[File:Information icon4.svg|link=|25px|alt=Information icon]] There is currently a discussion at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents]] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.&nbsp;The thread is [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Locke Cole accusing me of being disruptive|User:Locke Cole accusing me of being disruptive]]. Thank you.<!--Template:Discussion notice--><!--Template:ANI-notice--> —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 02:21, 28 November 2022 (UTC) == ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message == <div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> <div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px;">[[File:Scale of justice 2.svg|40px]]</div> <div class="ivmbox-text"> Hello! Voting in the '''[[WP:ACE2022|2022 Arbitration Committee elections]]''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2022|end}}-1 day}}. All '''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2022#Election timeline|eligible users]]''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The [[WP:ARBCOM|Arbitration Committee]] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration|Wikipedia arbitration process]]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose [[WP:BAN|site bans]], [[WP:TBAN|topic bans]], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy|arbitration policy]] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2022/Candidates|the candidates]] and submit your choices on the '''[[Special:SecurePoll/vote/{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2022|poll}}|voting page]]'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>[[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 00:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)</small> </div> </div> <!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2022/Coordination/MM/01&oldid=1124425177 --> == User contributed images == Hi Colin, I would value your advice or comments on this discussion regarding user made images contravening [[WP:OR]] and needing [[WP:V]] [[User_talk:A455bcd9#Why_not_do_something_useful]]. I took objection to this user tagging some of my diagrams. Maybe I am in the wrong. Best regards. [[User:Graham Beards|Graham Beards]] ([[User talk:Graham Beards|talk]]) 19:18, 8 December 2022 (UTC) :There is [[WP:IMAGEOR]]. I'm not sure what else is explicitly stated in policy. If you look in the talk archives of [[WP:OR]] and [[WP:V]] you see that images are perennially discussed. I contributed to [[Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 72#Unreferenced pictures from Commons]]. From a scan of the archives [[User:WhatamIdoing]] has been handling this question since 2010! :I think that if a user has a genuine concern about the image being wrong or making a claim they sincerely doubt, then it is fine to raise that question on talk, and if the claim is on the Commons description then raise it at Commons too. As my ravens example in the above discussion shows, this can identify real faults that get fixed, though not necessarily by sticking a source citation on it. Just going through images slapping tags on them seems very unhelpful. I wonder even if that tag has a justifiable use. :I also see that the user changed [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Introduction_to_viruses&diff=1125583181&oldid=1123452051&diffmode=source changed from PNG to SVG] but the images are not equivalent, lacking the all important virus (14). That's just careless. -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|^Talk]] 20:46, 8 December 2022 (UTC) ::Thanks Colin, as always most helpful. The missing virus is really annoying! I spent ages putting it in (all those years ago). May I take the liberty of directing the user in question to this discussion? Best regards, [[User:Graham Beards|Graham Beards]] ([[User talk:Graham Beards|talk]]) 21:13, 8 December 2022 (UTC) :::[[User:Graham Beards|@Graham Beards]] No problem. -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|^Talk]] 22:08, 8 December 2022 (UTC) ::::See also [[Wikipedia talk:No original research#Maps, OR, and SYNTHESIS]] with this same user. ::::IMO this area requires a nuanced understanding of both the overall goal and the rules. The best practice is not something that can be easily set out in one or two absolute statements. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 00:27, 9 December 2022 (UTC) :::::Hi, I didn't know whether I should answer here or on @[[User:Graham Beards|Graham Beards]]'s talk page, so, I've just [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:A455bcd9&type=revision&diff=1126435015&oldid=1126343514&diffmode=source answered there]. Best, [[User:A455bcd9|A455bcd9]] ([[User talk:A455bcd9|talk]]) 09:02, 9 December 2022 (UTC) ==Peace Dove== [[Image:Peace dove.svg|frameless|center|upright=0.8]]{{quotation|<center>'''Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension.'''</center>}} <center>Happy Holidays. &#8213;[[User:Buster7|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Buster7'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Buster7|<span style="color:#AAA;">&#9742;</span>]] 07:36, 12 December 2022 (UTC)</center> == Great photos! == I looked at your userpage in the course of responding to your comment elsewhere, and wanted to say that I really like your photography! Images that stood out particularly were the ravens at the Tower, the escalators at Lloyd's, and the tourists at the National Monument. Good eye. [[User:Ganesha811|—Ganesha811]] ([[User talk:Ganesha811|talk]]) 13:40, 21 February 2023 (UTC) :Hi Ganesha811. Thanks for this. Wrt the other topic, I think a facepalm is certainly needed for what they posted offline. You linked to some articles you think are biased that they wrote. I don't know how much you edit in this area. Most articles on either side of the trans debate are very polarised and most of the editors working on them are very opinionated and not afraid to say so. That they have an opinion is not unusual. These kinds of articles strongly focus on the negatives that have been published. So they can be a bit shocking if you haven't read similar. But a problem is that the article subject isn't known for being neutral or for their kind words about such and such, they are known for being radical and often hateful. :Have you looked at [[Andrew Wakefield]]. Our article calls him a "discredited academic" who "falsely claimed" involved in "anti-vaccination activism" and a "fraud". Indeed we have an article [[Lancet MMR autism fraud]]. At first glance, someone who didn't know him or the topic, might think they'd stumbled across some attack blog posting. But then, this is what reliable source do write about him. Reliable sources have no praise for him at all, so we can't balance things out by writing some nice things about how handsome and friendly he is, or whatever. I haven't studied your linked articles in details and their sources, but they don't by a long way strike me as the worst content in this area. They seem quite typical in fact. Btw, have you installed "Who wrote that?" in your browser. It lets you see who wrote every bit of article text. :My concern is that we have reasons to topic ban people, and they are mostly about disruption and not getting it. This is a relatively new editor (I assume, unless they had a previous account). That they have written articles and expanded articles is actually a good thing. We can make them better. There are lots, and I mean lots, of editors in this domain who haven't created or written anything. They just edit war (always below the 3RR) and argue and revert. And turn up at AN/I and vote to topic ban someone "on the other side". -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|^Talk]] 14:56, 21 February 2023 (UTC) ::Thanks for your detailed response. I don't edit in this topic area at all; I generally prefer to steer clear of hotly contested areas. It's a polarizing topic, and I think this editor is genuinely unable to keep their strong personal beliefs from impacting their editing in this area. I think we can agree that this user has good potential for their future contributions. A topic ban (hopefully temporary) would be a chance for them to step back, develop their skills in other areas, and eventually return to contributing more neutrally and effectively. Thanks for the tip on the browser extension - looks useful! [[User:Ganesha811|—Ganesha811]] ([[User talk:Ganesha811|talk]]) 15:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC) :::Oh, you may well be right about "unable to keep their strong beliefs from impacting their editing in this area". I don't know them at all well. Its just, if that was the standard, then there are lots of other editors (some who voted for a ban) who should be ahead of them in the queue out the door. What do you think, based on their username and articles worked-on/created, do you think will be the response to a topic ban? That they'll just go and edit some articles on railway stations instead? :::The set of editors I see in this topic domain are all highly opinionated and see their mission on Wikipedia to fight for their cause. The only difference I see with that editor is they were foolish enough to write about it offline, and they actually created some articles, rather than just edit war and revert and comment on talk pages. Some editors in this domain are very naïve about how to write neutrally, and their contributions only represent one side of the argument. That editor was silly enough to write a whole article that you could point at, rather than spend months edit warring and arguing about a single paragraph at [[LGB Alliance]] or whatever. Some editors in this domain go around inventing policies and just totally making shit up all time till you wonder if you and they are editing the same Wikipedia. There are few good editors. We should get rid of the bad ones, if they won't improve, but not this way. Not via a banned sock account outing them. -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|^Talk]] 15:44, 21 February 2023 (UTC) ::::I see you replied to them at the AN/I. I don't disagree with your criticisms about how bias can creep in even when saying accurate things, etc. I guess my point is that most of the editors in this area are at least as bad as that. They find shit on the internet, insert it in the most strongly worded biased way that your eyes pop out, and then other editors battle with them till it ends up not quite so offensively worded or even gets removed. Rinse and repeat. Expecting individual editors in this area to all be saints is unrealistic. The question is whether they are collaborating with other editors in good faith and willing to compromise to get a result that approaches consensus. If they are doing that, it doesn't matter so much if what they initially post or create isn't great. Are they edit warring, getting blocks, constantly being taken to AN/I or wasting our time taking others to AN/I and so on. When warned, do they argue they haven't broken 3RR so go away. Do they waste everyone's time arguing on talk pages about the small stuff. I mean, I've recently had discussions with editors arguing to keep content that mentions a deleted tweet and pushing it because it supposedly says something about an organisations beliefs. I'd frankly much rather someone wrote articles than argue about a sentence. -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|^Talk]] 16:02, 21 February 2023 (UTC) :::::It's a fair perspective from someone who clearly observes how this topic area works, but in my view, creating articles deliberately in order to cast people/organizations in a bad light is crossing the line. A topic ban is a necessary step back. [[User:Ganesha811|—Ganesha811]] ([[User talk:Ganesha811|talk]]) 16:17, 21 February 2023 (UTC) == Discussion == There is currently a discussion at [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Global_ban_for_Livioandronico2013] regarding an issue which may interest you. Best regards, —[[User:Cote d&#39;Azur|Cote d&#39;Azur]] ([[User talk:Cote d&#39;Azur|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 08:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC) == Thanks == Hi @[[User:Colin|Colin]]. From the sidelines, but wanted to thank you for trying to remain objective and balanced in your judgments in the recent (and ongoing) ANI discussion about gensex advocacy. As someone who has been here for less than three years, I am really encouraged to see experienced editors lead by example. [[User:Ppt91|<span style="background-color:DimGray"><span style="font-family:Rockwell;font-weight:bold;color:White;">Ppt91</span></span>]][[User talk:Ppt91|<span style="background-color:White"><span style="color:DimGray;">^talk</span></span>]] 20:55, 25 February 2023 (UTC) == NORN == Hey Colin. A small thing: your recent comment at [[WP:NORN]] mistakenly labeled the noticeboard as the NPOV one. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 20:36, 28 February 2023 (UTC) :Thanks. I think I fixed it. Too any acronyms. -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|^Talk]] 21:15, 28 February 2023 (UTC) == Changing the copyright laws == https://forum.movement-strategy.org/t/join-our-project-copyright-campaign-crowdsourcing/2843 reminded me of that FOP image with the London landmarks removed. Maybe you're interested? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 17:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC) == WikiProject Med Newsletter - Issue 21 == {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Newsletter/June 2023}} [[User:Ajpolino|Ajpolino]] ([[User talk:Ajpolino|talk]]) 04:10, 19 May 2023 (UTC) <!-- Message sent by User:Ajpolino@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Newsletter/Mailing_list&oldid=1143736969 --> == You deserve other barnstars too == {| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;" |rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | [[File:Mensch5.png|100px]] |rowspan="2" | |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Barnstar of Integrity''' |- |style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | [[User:Theheezy|Theheezy]] ([[User talk:Theheezy|talk]]) 07:56, 4 July 2023 (UTC) |} :Thanks [[User:Theheezy|Theheezy]]. -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|^Talk]] 08:54, 4 July 2023 (UTC) == If you have time... == Hi Colin, I know time is always in short supply, but if you can find time to read over [[prostate cancer]] and share any suggestions for improvement, I'd be grateful. Your careful commentary at [[lung cancer]] and [[dracunculiasis]] (which I will return to eventually) was fantastic and much appreciated. I'm hoping to bring prostate cancer to FAC whenever it's ready, so feel free to pick nits. But also it's not too late for large-scale changes if you find something deeply lacking. I haven't started on the images yet, but will do so this week. Any image suggestions are appreciated. I'm aesthetically challenged. [[User:Ajpolino|Ajpolino]] ([[User talk:Ajpolino|talk]]) 14:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC) :Sure. If I forget, please feel free to poke me with a stick. -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|^Talk]] 14:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC) == derailing RFCs == Hi, I do not want to elevate this to ANI, however, I'm going to ask that you remove the irrelevant paragraph laced with thinly veiled personal attacks. You are more than welcome to contribute to the discussion productively. However, by filling the thread with irrelevant, frankly nonsense, you are ensuring no resolution will come about this. I am attempting to fix this. [[User:DarmaniLink|DarmaniLink]] ([[User talk:DarmaniLink|talk]]) 16:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC) :DarmaniLink, can I suggest please that you just drop it. AN/I loves giving out boomerangs. Your hostile attitude at [[Talk:Otoya Yamaguchi]], followed by directly [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles&diff=prev&oldid=1166545556 removing the guideline text] you were in conflict with, followed by [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)&diff=prev&oldid=1166656748 going to the Village Pump] will be perceived as [[WP:Gaming the system|gaming the system]] in order to "win" your content dispute. Something I have learned, but still get wrong at times, is that if something is important, it will be important to other people too. You've made 30 posts to the Village Pump. If other people think you have a point, they'd have picked it up and run with it by now. I can very much see you are desperate to ensure a resolution and don't want to drop it until you have one. But other editors on Wikipedia do not share your view that this topic must be resolved right now and to the satisfaction of DarmaniLink. This topic is a huge timesink on Wikipedia. The reason you aren't getting a resolution isn't because I have derailed your RFC. It is because nobody wants to have yet another mega discussion on the issue, and particularly not with editors who's behaviour is hostile and comments mostly inaccurate. -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|^Talk]] 17:08, 24 July 2023 (UTC) ::Then remove the paragraph so this doesn't escalate further, and allow the discussion that was previously in the process of taking place, to take place. [[User:DarmaniLink|DarmaniLink]] ([[User talk:DarmaniLink|talk]]) 17:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC) == Introduction to contentious topics == {{ivmbox | image = Commons-emblem-notice.svg |imagesize=50px | bg = #E5F8FF | text = You have recently edited a page related to '''the English Wikipedia [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] and [[Wikipedia:Article titles|article titles policy]]''', a topic designated as '''[[WP:AC/CT|contentious]]'''. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and <em>does <strong>not</strong> imply that there are any issues with your editing</em>. A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as ''contentious topics''. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project. Within contentious topics, editors should edit <strong>carefully</strong> and <strong>constructively</strong>, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and: *adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia; *comply with all applicable policies and guidelines; *follow editorial and behavioural best practice; *comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and *refrain from gaming the system. <p>Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics ''procedures'' you may ask them at the [[WT:AC/C|arbitration clerks' noticeboard]] or you may learn more about this contentious topic [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation|here]]. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{tl|Ctopics/aware}} template. </p>}}<!-- Derived from Template:Contentious topics/alert/first --> In particularly, please stop vindictively individually personalizing style disputes, especially by implying that anyone who disagrees with you must be a "conservative" who is going after "woke social justice warriors". That is just not okay. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 21:32, 26 July 2023 (UTC)'