User talk:WhatamIdoing/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions with User:WhatamIdoing. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Thanks. --Kleopatra (talk) 04:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome.

Good luck with reviving that project. If you're looking for advice, here's mine: Make sure that you post something to the project's talk page at least every few weeks, even if it's just to tell people which article you've been working on. WikiProjects are fundamentally social groups, and you need to sustain a level of "chatter" in the background to keep it on people's minds—and at the top of their watchlists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. My least best area of Wikipedia, unfortunately, but I'm working it. --Kleopatra (talk) 05:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, WhatamIdoing,

I feel like I still owe you one for your early, thoughful comments on my source lists and especially for the careful work you have put into the guide to reliable sources (medicine), a guideline I first learned about from RexxS. Thanks for those contributions and many other contributions to the project. The prolonged edit-warring still continuing after the summer's ArbCom case on race and intelligence has distracted several conscientious wikipedians from making sourced edits to article text on IQ testing and related issues. Thus, I still haven't attended to Gifted education as you suggested, although it is my intention to do that eventually. I would appreciate any advice you have time to give about how to do with the most recent gaming the system in regard to the human intelligence articles, some of which you can see linked to from posts to my user talk page. I would hope that referring to reliable sources would prove a basis for wikipedians to reach consensus about how to edit article text, but that works best when the editors involved all have a commitment actually to read and think about the sources. Meanwhile I'll be happy to hear from you any advice you have for me as I fill out the second half of my first year as a wikipedian. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

After a brief look, my overall assessment is that you're being hassled for writing the encyclopedia by people who would (apparently) prefer that you promoted their pet views and/or under-informed opinions. I'm sorry to say that there is no simple solution, because we can't compel the other people to read and think about the sources, no matter how much good it would do us or the world. You must keep on doing what is good and right, and being as polite as (in)humanly possible. Eventually, your current opponents will exhaust the (very, very large) patience of the community, and make pests of themselves enough to overcome the (very, very large) inertia of the admins, and they will end up blocked (or perhaps get disgusted and leave of their own volition [but see also What GoodBye Means).

My probably useless advice is to not let it discourage you, to continue slowly improving the article, and to continue being polite and responsive to questions and objections.

You might like to read DefendEachOther at the Meatball Wiki. For myself, when I'm feeling unsupported and discouraged, I usually go read User talk:MastCell to regain some perspective, since he's a truly excellent editor who is usually under more stress than I am. If you haven't already encountered him, I suggest making friends with User:WLU as well, since he's also not afraid of controversial topics. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Now I owe you two. Thanks. Your analysis of the applicable Wikipedia policies was especially helpful. I hear that help is on the way for the editor conduct issues in view there. And, yeah, those Meatball Wiki links (neither of which I had heard of before) have it nailed. Both of the other editors you mention have indeed come to my attention as good examples. Feel free to visit my talk page any time you are feeling stress. I always feel less stress when I can think about how to help a friend. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

...WhatamIdoing, for moving my request to the appropriate notice board. Much appreciated. Regards, Cinosaur (talk)

You're welcome. I hope that you get useful responses as a result. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for asking, but could you, for one, give some feedback too? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 10:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

It's on my list. I sometimes try to give others a chance first. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Would you put WP:MED on the list for the recent changes page? Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Done:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:RecentChangesLinked/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Recent_changes

Rich Farmbrough, 10:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC).

FYI. Rich Farmbrough, 22:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC).

Thanks! WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I find it necessary to remove the section you just added. I don't see how it can be said that a goal of outreach is to combat misconceptions that I believe the great majority of neuroscientists have never heard of. In my experience, that's not what the majority of neuroscientists involved in outreach are doing. Looie496 (talk) 17:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Well... Did you read the source (the book, at least)? Because the source said that these were the major problems, and that these were (or should be) the major points that the public needed to be educated about.

What you and I personally think is much less important than what the reliable sources say, after all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi all, I came here based on Looie's edit summary pointing here. Please let me suggest that we discuss this further at Talk:Neuroscience. However, my initial reaction when first seeing the edit was one of feeling a little uncomfortable with the way it seemed to state as fact things that I'm pretty sure are treated differently by different sources; at the same time, I think the concepts the edit was getting at are interesting ones that are worth pursuing in that page. I think the solution may end up being to find some additional sources, and base whatever the page will say upon multiple sources, rather than on just one. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Then see Talk:Neuroscience#Neuro-realism.2C_etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I saw your new ping, and I apologize for falling behind on that. I'm juggling a lot, both on and off wiki, but feel free to ping me again if you want. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:There is no deadline: If it takes us a month or more to finish this conversation, that won't bother me. I also need to wrap up some other things, in part because eventually the library will insist on seeing a few books I borrowed over a month ago.  ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I'm new here, first of all thanks for reviewing my article, as you know you found it blank, I tried to delete the article and the request but I don't know how?, please can you help me?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Uduria/Status_Story —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uduria (talk • contribs) 09:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

It's very easy. Into the blank article, paste this: {{db-author}}

Then save the page—that weird code will put a pink note on it—and wait for someone to officially delete the page (usually takes less than a day). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I have deleted the page. (I was watching this page because of the discussion above, and saw no sense in wasting effort.) Looie496 (talk) 17:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I reverted you on the notability guideline. I'd like everyone to walk away from this feeling satisfied though. I think a lot of us share the same goals from the RFC. Some of those goals we shared reluctantly or having been forced to abandon our personal preferences. I just believe there's a way to get this wording right while respecting some of the principles of the RFC. Off the topic of my head

1. There shouldn't have to be the existence of an actual list in a reliable secondary source in order to create an acceptable list topic. (Too strict.)
2. But... not every article X results in a viable list of Xs on the same topic. (Too lenient.)
3. A notable list should be a notable class or group of things. (This is to respect the first two principles.)

Besides those three things that came up repeatedly in the RFC... I'd add that you're right that we shouldn't confound topic with title. This didn't come up in the RFC... but you're describing a common sense principle that most reasonable people would agree with. But the response to that is that the topic shouldn't be whatever editors say the topic is. So that's the balance we have to strike.

Again, I'd like everyone to walk away feeling satisfied... even if no one is 100% happy. Do you think I've been accurate about the discussion thus far? If so... then hopefully we can work out a wording that respects all of that. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Since my recent change wasn't about lists, I hope that you'll reconsider this change. In the course of cramming list information into GNG, you are breaking it for non-list articles.

The article title is not the topic, full stop. The article title may contain disambiguating phrases, for example. The title may be a materially incomplete description of the topic ("Professional athletes" vs "Professional athletes, excluding aesthetic athletic events like figure skating, during the last two centuries, who have been paid more than a trivial amount"). The title may have been chosen out of a need to separate it from some other topic. (For example, see Natural family planning, which is specifically about Catholic Church-approved means of preventing or achieving pregnancy, and Fertility awareness, which is the same kinds of methods, but divorced from the religious philosophy. Both of these subjects could lay claim to the "NFP" name, but "FA" is the name (far and away) preferred by secular proponents.)

NB that whether the topic is defined solely by the title has nothing to do with your second sentence: It is possible for the topic of a non-list article to be defined in the lead, or in a hatnote, or some other way, without saying one single word about whether the topic of a list needs sources that deal with the list as a set or list.

Additionally, I think you should move your disputed "Sources" sentence down to the "Sources" item in the GNG, because the kind of sources required to establish notability tells you nothing at all about the topic of the page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, definitely don't want to break the GNG for non-list topics. But I also want to respect the RFC and update the GNG to reflect the consensus about the notability of lists. I need you to show some patience and work with me. I'm even willing to go back to the drawing board. The only thing I'm against is outright or removal of information that's trying to describe the RFC consensus. I'm here to hash out the best way to phrase and organize this.

Maybe the solution IS to get away from this whole discussion of "topic". Just that we need to put first things first. Read the bullets from my first post... are we on the same page so far? If so, then maybe you can offer some suggestions on how to present that agreement. If not, then let's try to understand each other. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree to #1 and #2; I don't absolutely agree with #3. It's a tautology (it amounts to "a notable topic should be a notable topic"), and it leaves no room for navigational lists.

But what I want you to realize is that these are separate issues. The definition of the topic for all articles is not related to the description of suitable sources for one specialized type of article, even though you have (inappropriately) placed the two sentences in the same paragraph. Please (re)fix the now-busted definition for all articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Navigational lists were a whole other headache. We agreed to side step it at the RFC. But I agree with you on 1 and 2. I also agree that we don't want to break "topic" for all other articles. And I think I miscommunicated #3. Re-reading it, it does look like "a notable list is a notable group". What I really mean to say is "for the purposes of verifying the notability of a list, the topic of a list is a group of things." (Which hopefully represents that middle ground between #1 and #2.) Would you agree with what I just said ... ignoring how I might have phrased it at the GNG currently? Shooterwalker (talk) 00:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey, i did not made any edit or CSD for this article... Kante4 (talk) 01:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you did. The page has been moved (twice) since then. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but the page i requested is deleted... Kante4 (talk) 05:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Only if by "deleted" you count "deleted for one hour" as really being deleted. The article was restored or re-created under a new name when the admin discovered that your hasty tagging had resulted in the deletion of a brand-new article whose initial author was still working on it.

But my point is much simpler: The CSD policy directly tells you to give people a chance to get content into the articles. You're apparently doing a less-than-stellar job of this. Please improve your performance—as measured in the number of new editors you don't annoy or scare off, not in the number of pages that get deleted for an hour. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I know the wikileaks discussion buried it, but I responded to your question.陣内_Jinnai 23:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I saw the response, but I don't have anything useful/actionable/practical to say. My gut response is to wonder whether we could get the site's owner to completely rearrange the website for our convenience, which is rather impractical and unhelpful.

My default answer is to exclude links like that, but I'm not going to remove it if you think its inclusion is helpful in the particular circumstances of the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Did you see my comment here? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

That part about notability in WP:Hospitals was pretty much what I was alluding to, but I didn't get around to researching and phrasing it as well as you did. Agree completely with what you wrote there. Much appreciated! Ng.j (talk) 04:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Re. feed, and the discussion on Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Requests_for_feedback -

Thanks for helping out there.

Yes, it is fun and congenial, I agree. That's why I've tried v hard to keep it going; sadly, at the moment, I'm not able to be as active as normal on Wikipedia, and thus it is sad to see it backing up; when that has happened before, it started to fail - if people see that there are no responses, they give up on it.

Whereas, when it is active and gets prompt responses, users tend to see answers to other questions as well as their own, and it thus definitely serves a very useful purpose.

I don't have a magic answer; it is quite a fundamental problem - more people want to write new articles than want to help other new users. I've tried various ways of encouraging people to give feedback, and the post on VP was one of those.

Regardless - thanks for your comment, and indeed for giving a bit of feedback. See you around.  Chzz  ►  21:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if a note at Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron would produce some useful responses. It could be a sort of "preventive maintenance" for ARS, and getting just a couple of editors to provide feedback at only one request per day would really make a difference.

What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I have started a discussion about the local interest clause in WP:ORG, which you were the author of. Your input into the discussion would be appreciated. - DustFormsWords (talk) 11:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I'll join the discussion later today or tomorrow. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

There is another unstated possibility which is not acknowledged by your recent diff. Is it not remotely likely that some will construe mentorship as constructive, positive, forward-looking? Good intentions solve no problems nor is it enough to make mentoring effective -- but is this to be unacknowledged as an aspect of this topic? --Tenmei (talk) 22:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

An excellent point. Why don't you add it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello, WhatamIdoing. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy).
Message added 15:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

How come you changed it? What was wrong with my definition? I'm just wondering. I mean yeah it's no big deal so (it's just the difference between being a teen when they give birth to being 20 when they do) so why was that important?

Just wanting to know why. :)

so that maybe I can keep my definition.

My neighbor got pregnant at 19 and gave birth to her son at 20 many many years ago so just curious

--Sue, 26—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.193.222 (talk) 19:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Your definition (however rational it seems) is not what the majority of experts use when they're compiling the statistics. (The only people who define teen pregnancies by the date of conception are some—not all—of the people compiling statistics on voluntary abortions.) See, e.g., PMID 18578105. I suspect that one reason they've settled on the end of pregnancy as the standard is the ease of identifying the correct date: People might reasonably disagree over the date of conception by up to a month (is that baby premature, or overdue?), but the date on which someone had an abortion or gave birth can be easily documented, both for current and historical calculations.

"Many years ago", being a "teenage mother" was normal. In 1970, 36% of American women gave birth before their 20th birthday.[1] WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I left a question on Wikipedia talk:Images about renaming some images but I noticed you had answered several questions so I thoght I would just ask. I have a large set (and getting bigger) of images that were poorly named and need to be renamed (in some cases they can be deleted completely because the image exists with a different name). Since I am not an admin I can't do this myself. Do you have any suggestions for where I could post the list and the recommended name change so someone that does have access can do the renaming? Thanks --Kumioko (talk) 16:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

There's information at the top of WP:IFD. Duplicates—assuming that the duplicates are both on Wikipedia (not one here and one at Commons, or two slightly different versions of an image) qualify for speedy deletion. If there are near-duplicates, you can nominate it for regular deletion at IFD.

For files that just need the name changed, see the instructions at WP:MOF. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I was hoping there was an easier way. It seems that category already has a back log woth more than 150 Files so if I add a few hundred more It'l swamp it but unfortunately there is no other way. File names such as the above just arent helpful to users. --Kumioko (talk) 17:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, it's not necessary for file names to be human readable or to contain a mini description. Your time might be better spent making sure that the files are usefully categorized and described. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Right now I am starting by tagging the talk pages of the US related ones with the WPUS banner. Once I do that then I can more easily cull through the list and start chopping some of the uneeded ones and fixing some of the problems. Since I am still fairly new to tha area of Files and media there are limited things that I know how or when to do but Ill pick them up as I go. You say that its not needed to have a human readable description but may I ask why not? Aside from the fact that its only a matter of time before someone uploads a new File:Ship 1.jpg image and overrights this one. If I wanted to find an Image for the Russian ship Mikhail Merchink I would be much more likely to look for it at File:Mikhail Merchink then at File:Ship 1.jpg. Is there another way to find images rather than by name? --Kumioko (talk) 18:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you Help:Search for them. Click "Multimedia" to include images in your search results. This is why having a description is so much more valuable than having a 'guessable' file name.

I cannot imagine why you think that spamming the WPUS template to the image's talk page will make it easier for you to propose a name change. It will actually make changing the name more work, because the admin will have to delete and restore two separate pages rather than just the one image page. ("Delete and restore" is how you move images; it's not as simple as moving an article, and there's no 'tick the box to move the associated talk page' option.)

My advice to you is that you not create any talk pages for any page that you might possibly consider having moved (at least until after it has been moved). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, what do you mean by are usefully categorized and described? --Kumioko (talk) 18:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Go to File:Ship 1.jpg. Look at the space immediately underneath the image. See the section labeled ==Summary==? The uploader has provided a written description. This allows you to find this image by searching for keywords that are on the page. You could, if you wanted to be useful, expand that description to include other information about the contents of the image, such as the name or type of the ship. All images should contain a description, under some sensible heading like ==Description== or ==Summary== or ==Contents==.

Now scroll to the very end of the page. See the bits that say "Categories: United States Navy images | Korean Air Lines Flight 007"? Those are Help:Categories. They make it possible for a person to go to Category:United States Navy images (for example) and find this image, even if they don't know the name of the file or have any reason to think it might exist. All images should be placed in appropriate categories. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info about Help:Search but that sorta makes my point too because (and I am going on a limb here) most editors, let alone casual readers arent going to know that. They are going to just search for it and when they can't find it either assume its not there and reupload another copy of it or just go on about their day. I have been here for several years and although I admit I don't dabble in Files much I didn't know thats how to search for them. Also in regards to adding the WPUS banner I am doing that for several reasons including:

1. Having easy visibility what images are in the US scope to allow us to:
2. see if one is being submitted for deletion, move, Featured image, etc.
3. see visibility of Comments and concerns left on the Images talk page
4. Find what we need to use on articles
5. Find the ones that are duplicative and get rid of them
6. to a lesser degree it also increases visibility of the project
7. Will allow us to communicate with the viewers of the content as the project matures a little more
8. the various other reasons to park a WPbanner on a talk page.

I know that some folks don't like the WP templates and there even more apprehensive on non article spaces but they really do help us manage what content we havein our scope without being surprised when it comes up deleted or a comment goes unanswered for 3 years (as is the case on a number of images I have found). Thanks again for the help, explanations and patience so I can understand how these files work. Thanks for the info on the descriptions and the categories as well. I think I can probably help with some of that too. --Kumioko (talk) 19:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry to hear that you have been unable to figure out how to search for files. I do not think that yours is a common experience.

I don't have any objection to you tagging the files; in fact, I think it's a fine idea, assuming always that the WikiProject in question doesn't object. However, it would be better for Wikipedia if you did this after the pages were moved (unless it happens that a File talk: page already exists for that particular image).

This is an issue of not needlessly doubling the admins' workload. There's already a backlog at that page: Why would you want to make it worse by requiring two moves for every file instead of just one? (Also, the moves will get done faster if you don't make them move so many extra pages.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Making work for other people is never my intention and in this case is only evident because the process is locked for non admins. I am only finding the files as I tag them so when I tag it is basically when I see that it has a bad name. I suppose I could request the move first but with the existing backlog I donubt they would be done anytime soon and I am trying to get them tagged as soon as possible so I can move on to other tasks associated with the project. If I were able to do it myself (and I suspect others would as well) I would just do the move and be done with it. I also think that the process you describe for moving images is overly burdensome and probably needs to be simplified with a change request of buzilla report (why should moving an image be different than anything else?). And this is probably something that could be split off as an independant privilage like rollback and autoreviewer but those are just my opinions. Thanks again. --Kumioko (talk) 20:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Let me suggest that you nom them for the moves as you find them, and go on to those other tasks while you're waiting.

Everyone would be happy to see the file-move problem fixed, but it's apparently not going to happen any time soon, so we're stuck. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Thats fair Ill try and tag them as I see them. I already tagged a lot but I will adjust my practice of tagging badly named images/media going forward. --Kumioko (talk) 20:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I just submitted the first ten or so before I thought I should probably ask you to take a look and see if I did it correctly. You can see several in my contributions or else here is one example. File:Va-105.jpg. Please let me know if you have any suggestions or comments. --Kumioko (talk) 21:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The actual dates are not important, except that the organization tries to schedule major activities on them; I'm still searching for a reference other than a flyer. 75.202.98.159 (talk) 19:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

That's a good reason to include the dates, then. Good luck finding the source you're searching for. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

In the Alexandra Powers article I created I found a website that says she is in Scientology. Here's the website: http://www.truthaboutscientology.com/stats/by-name/a/alexandra-powers.html Should this be used as a reference in the article? Please let me know. Neptunekh2 (talk) 16:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Why are you spamming this notice to so many people and noticeboards?

I think you need to read WP:CANVAS and WP:FORUMSHOP. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Good idea! ThemFromSpace 01:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad that you like it. I'd love to have you work on it for a while. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello, WhatamIdoing. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Verapar (talk) 23:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm having trouble seeing why anyone cares, but you seem to have sorted out the standards correctly. However, if you've got better sources, I'd dump the direct quotation and rely on the WP:third-party sources so you don't have to mess with the SPS issues. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Was just in the middle of rewording it all--guess i should have done that before i reverted. Sorry by bad Moxy (talk) 18:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Write me on my profile page in the future for the medicinal mushroom article. It will be easier to chat that way. Thanks and happy editing. Jatlas (talk) 18:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

No, thanks. Discussions about article content belong on the article's talk page whenever possible, so that multiple people can be involved. And it's paying off in the current instance, because someone has found a decent source to support your claim that Lentinan has regulatory approval in Japan. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

O yeah, good point. Jatlas (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback!!--Codrin.B (talk) 03:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I see a tempest in a teapot brewing over at the discussion page of special education. I have been monitoring it on my watchlist but haven't had the chance to jump in yet. Personally, I think we've got a familar sock stinking up the place. I took a good look at the pattern of the edits and the summaries are quite similar, and we all know this page is not frequented by many (I think WP:DUCK). That being said, she is editing the page with a dull axe and I will jump in today. Thanks ahead for your work. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 13:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems likely, doesn't it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Another careful look at the edit summaries, reverting patterns and addition of trivial (and wrong) information seems to make it definite, but of course we need an investigation to make this bonafide. Do you want to get the ball rolling? I see she has been blocked for other reasons. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 21:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Have you ever done it before? If not, it's time that you learned. Go to WP:SPI. Her sock pages have been moved to User:Random account 39949472 per WP:Don't be evil (so that's what you put in the field). For a DUCK test, you don't ask for checkuser evidence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I've done it before, but always seem to get the formatting wrong. Anyway, it is here [2]

We'll see what becomes of it. Thanks.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 12:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations on your success. I think her response is telling. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

What webs we weave.By "we" of course I mean smelly socks, not you or me. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 17:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

If you're not yet heartily sick of the endless discussions about linking to Find A Grave, then an effort to write down the usual arguments (similar to WP:PEREN) has begun at Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites.

For any talk page watches: People with a talent for turning apparent mountains back into the molehills they really are would be particularly welcome. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that page earlier. It's an excellent idea, and should be linked to from any relevant templates. SilkTork *^YES! 11:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

On 10 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Breast cancer awareness, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that wearing a pink ribbon for breast cancer awareness has been denounced as a form of feel-good slacktivism that saves no lives? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Not to waste time, once you stay with WP:PAREN, please add page numbers as recommended there. Materialscientist (talk) 02:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

No need to go one by one - I leave the article (and go offline for some time). Materialscientist (talk) 02:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, WhatamIdoing. You have new messages at Giftiger wunsch's talk page.
Message added 00:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Brace yourself. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Right, thanks for asking. No, I didn't see anything that refuted the objections to the link, so I went ahead and requested its blacklisting at the link which you kindly provided (thank you). It is at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Hidden wiki. Herostratus (talk) 06:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the status report. Let's hope that they take the request seriously. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't make these requests lightly, but I was wondering if I could persuade you to have a look at Talk:Vertebral artery dissection. The article recently achieved GA status during a period of quiet. Unfortunately, someone with a strong anti-chiropractic agenda has decided to use the page as a WP:COATRACK. I have already made a number of concessions, but the discussion keeps on going around in circles about a source of such limited relevance that the mind staggers. Various fora have already been used for this discussion (including a spillover into the fringe topics noticeboard). Please let me know if I'm asking too much. JFW | T@lk 00:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I've been keeping an eye out for the article and almost posted a note on its talk page earlier today, except that I was optimistically hoping that the problem would die down. I'll join the discussion now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

What prompted you to created {{WikiProject style advice}}? I noticed that you linked Category:Style guidelines of WikiProjects (in one of the template's blue links). I am at a loss because of this because the category says that they are style guidelines, which would mean that they DO infact fall under wp:policies and guidelines.Bernolákovčina (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The community has had several long discussions about this recently, and I created this template because of a specific need identified in one of the conversations. The category was named several years ago, when the difference between "guideline" and "essay" was merely the personal preference of the editors who tagged the page. You might like to read WP:The difference between policies, guidelines, and essays. The category will some day need to be moved, but moving categories is much harder than moving pages, and I haven't considered it important enough to start that tedious process.

Also, essays "fall under" WP:Policies and guidelines, which—if you'll scroll to the bottom half of the page—describes the modern, community-wide proposal process required to declare something a "real" guideline. WikiProject advice pages do not go through this process and are not properly guidelines.

Finally, you might like to read WP:WikiProject Council/Guide#Advice_pages, which provides more information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Could you elaborate on "The category will some day need to be moved"?Bernolákovčina (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The name of the category is (because of how the community's use of these terms has changed) now misleading. The typical person doubtless looks at the category name and assumes that the word "guideline" there means WP:GUIDELINE instead of wikt:guideline. The only way to stop this confusion is to make the name of the category accurately describe the status of the pages in it.

My own personal preference for the future name is something like "WikiProject style advice", which makes no claims about the status of the page as anything other than advice. One reason that I favor this is because it is possible for a style advice pages to be both advice from a WikiProject and an "official" style guideline.

However—the vast majority of our readers never see any of these pages. So I think that fixing this problem is much less important than fixing all of the other problems. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. I have been going through the pages listed at this category, and removing the category where it was irrelevant, and tagging pages with {{style-guideline}}. For example, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(chemistry)/Compound_classes is listed at your category and resemstyle-guidelineebles a very neutal style manual, but is not tagged with {{style-guideline}}.

On the other hand, a editor believes the poker guideline is some sort of rule manual even though I have told him that the aspects of the rules contradicts wp:manual of style. Like i have said, i have been going through the category to remove the inappropriate inclusions, but 90 pages is a lot, and it takes careful work not to remove it when it should stay. Also, I need to tag the pages with {{style-guideline}} and propose forking, renaming, or moving content to another page. Would renaming the category be the best course of action? The other option is to delete the category. I also remember discussion where wikiprojects do not have authority over wider whole(-)wikipedia consensus.Bernolákovčina (talk) 04:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this, but you need to stop tagging things as being style guidelines right now, and undo all of those changes. Nothing is a guideline unless the community says it is, and no single editor can claim to be "the community" and unilaterally declare a page to be either a style guideline or part of the Manual of Style.

Furthermore, it sounds like you haven't quite grasped the subtle distinction between a style guideline and the Manual of Style, and consequently, even if the pages are actual guidelines, you're putting the wrong tags on some of them.

This is much more complicated than it looks, so please stop. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. I won't add tags to wikiproject page "guidelines", but if it seems that these pages are guidelines, then more input would be required from, like you said, not just me. The question is why these pages are under your category, and like you said you mentioned they are not guidelines, as the definition no longer can apply. Should we then delete the category all together? I do have concerns because some pages do seem to be guidelines, manual of style or otherwise.Bernolákovčina (talk) 23:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

When the definition of a guideline evolved, i believe this category was overlooked. Since you were the one who made this category, and applied this category to the pages, it seems important that we need to assess which pages are guidelines, how-to pages, help pages, and advice pages. Could you give me your opinions if I propose the category for deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bernolákovčina (talk • contribs) 23:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I did not make the category. It was created by someone else, years ago. Doubtless they had a discussion at the time, and doubtless it seemed like a good idea to them.

Figuring out the "official" status of pages listed in that category is difficult. I suggest that you leave those pages alone and find something much more important to do. For example, I hear that there's more than quarter million articles that allegedly contain no sources, and based on my limited experience, as much as 20% of the older ones may actually contain citations. If you don't feel like adding sources, you might feel like removing the {{unreferenced}} template from articles that now contain sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, that is right, you made the template! Thank you for this factoid.Bernolákovčina (talk) 00:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I wanted to know if I could get your thoughts on an issue. There are a number of dermatologic signs which by themselves are not cutaneous conditions (for example: the casal necklace, crowe sign, and the sign of Leser–Trélat). However, because they are closely related the actual cutaneous conditions, I have been mulling over the idea of somehow integrating those links into the list of cutaneous conditions, perhaps in a footnote, or by some other method. With that being said, (1) how do you feel about their inclusion in the list, and (2) if you think it would be appropriate to add them, how best should that be done (i.e. mentioning them in a footnote, adding a new section, etc). ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 01:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Because List of cutaneous conditions is already enormous, I would avoid expanding it with content that could be plausibly placed on a separate page, e.g., List of dermatologic signs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I have been reading the discussion over at the mathematics page, and my views on the topic fall inline with yours. While I have not edited many math-related pages, I do occasionally try to read them, and find many of them very difficult to understand. If you or others ever start a movement to make math-related content more accessible to readers such as myself, please let me know how I can help/support you. ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 03:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that it's possible to make those articles entirely accessible to someone like me, but I'm convinced what we have is not the best we can do—far from it, in fact.

That's been a painful discussion, but I think we have finally convinced at least a few of them that a real, non-imaginary problem exists. At any rate, we finally have a couple of editors seeking a general model for solving the problem (see WT:MATH#Three_questions_for_the_lede).

On an unrelated note, have you wandered by Cancer, which is the WP:MCOTM for January? I used to try to do at least some little trivial thing for the collaborations, but I've neglected them for a while. And since I'm currently "up" on the sociology of cancer (after writing Breast cancer awareness), I thought this would be a good way to get back into it... although I find that I'm dragging my feet in the dull work of finding sources to support really basic information (e.g., "more or less half of cancer patients die from cancer", which is common knowledge to people like us, but not to our readers). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi WhatamIdoing. With all due respect, I don't think your comments about me are really helping the situation, nor are they accurate. If you don't like collaborative problem solving, you're welcome to discuss any new methods of trouble shooting here, or even on my own talk page - I'm really quite easy to get along with - but let's not disrupt the 'work' pages. Thanks. --Kudpung (talk) 20:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I remain unimpressed with your claim that editors who do not follow a long list of steps are not "properly" reviewing articles listed at Special:NewPages, and with your determination to punish this one for not following those made-up, unofficial instructions.

At some level, the user's actual (poor) performance is irrelevant to me: nobody is required to take any of the advice at WP:NPP, full stop. Pretending otherwise harms the project and further alienates editors. Complaining about an editor who "only" tagged 10% of patrolled pages reinforces the strong belief in the community that the folks at NPP are a bunch of tag bombers. None of this is good, and your defensive, punitive response isn't helping. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

If you don't like working together with people to help editors who have difficulty in understanding the policies and guidelines in the nicest possible way, you are still free to make suggestions to improve the way this encyclopedia project is run. However, mixing up who said what to be able to break the rules by making personal attacks on the people who care, and making false claims about what you decide their determinations are, are not very positive. --Kudpung (talk) 21:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Kudpung, noticing that you have advocated topic-banning an editor over not doing something "properly", when there is no "proper" way to do it, is not a personal attack. You said "This NPP projects clearly defines its objectives, and its recommendations what New Page Patrollers should be doing." My response to your statement is still to say that the NPP project page is not a policy or a guideline and that the NPP project does not WP:OWN new page patrolling.

I think you need to go read WP:PA#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack.3F. I have not insulted, disparaged, or threatened you. I have disagreed (strongly) with your beliefs about whether failing to perform the list of tasks at WP:NPP is something that the community issues topic bans over. Clearly articulating areas of disagreement is an acceptable, even necessary, part of resolving disputes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I have never express such 'beliefs', I think you need to stop defending your personal attacks by taking people's statements totally out of context and serving up untruths. I can throw a whole book of policy infringements at you if you prefer, but I do not like, and I do not seek conflict, and I don't take part in it. If you are determined to go around shooting the messengers, please take a Wikibreak or find another target. I have removed your talk page from my watchlist.Kudpung (talk) 06:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

[3] How did I miss that? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

It's easy enough to do. The more notices we have, the easier they are to overlook. For example, I accidentally killed Yobot earlier today: I was reading the edit notice while clicking the 'save page' button. Apparently, any new message on that page stops the bot. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, We're awaiting your input on the new lead at exterior algebra. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

On a quick look, the improvement is truly amazing. But I'm sure that you'll want me to read it after breakfast.  ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Your removing Jon Folkman was certainly worth considering. (I have not reverted it.)

See the discussion at the category for cancer survivors for (any) discussion.

Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 21:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not hugely committed to my initial position, but would be happy to see any comments. There are two main theories about cancer survivorship: one says that anyone who has ever been diagnosed with cancer, including those who are actively dying of the disease, are "survivors". Another school of thought says you actually have to be surviving in the plain-English sense of the word to be a "survivor". The first school of thought(?) is promoted by some American fundraising organizations; the second seems to be more common in the UK. What I have called the American style was probably influenced strongly by the shocking murder-suicide of Guy Gilpatric and his wife in 1950.

The category is an under-watched page, so if there's no response after at few days, then you might ask again at WT:MED. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your comments of my talk page. I did respond to you but had a troll harassing me so I fear you may of missed it. Please look at the thread you started it you missed my response. If you didn't, please ignore and feel free to delete or archive this. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Responded again here. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 00:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm just curious. Which version did you revert Teenage pregnancy back to? We all have our own style - me, when I do a revert like that I specify, for example: rvt to 23:25, 20 January 2011 to help me remember when I look back on my contribs or an article's history. Slightsmile (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Most of the copyvio problems appeared on 10 January, e.g., here. The current text goes back to here and several non-vandalized revisions before that. In addition to fixing the copyvio problems, the reversion also fixed a good deal of simple vandalism (e.g., deleting random parts of paragraphs like this). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi WhatamIdoing, thank you for the barnstar. :) I appreciate your appreciation of the work Hydroxonium, HJ Mitchell, and I did, and will hopefully continue soon. Best. Acalamari 10:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is studded with helpful people, and you are one of them. Thank you. 122.200.166.100 (talk) 07:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. I hope that someone will know the answer to my question at WT:MED about the relationship between UV light and melanoma that starts deep in the body. (It just doesn't seem like UV light ought to be able to reach that far into the body, but perhaps I'm wrong.)

By the way, there's an "official" collaboration at the article Cancer until the end of January. If you had a few minutes and wanted to take a look, I'd be happy to have any impenetrable parts pointed out. (You can paste {{huh}} at the end of opaque sentences, for example, which puts up a little complaint tag.) I've worked on a couple of subsections, but haven't actually read the whole thing from start to finish. I suppose that's what I ought to do later today. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I tried to answer your question about melanoma at WT:MED. By the way, since positive reinforcement is in short supply around here, I wanted to second the original poster's commendation. You do excellent work here. Please keep it up and don't get discouraged, especially as we seem to be losing irreplaceable editors left and right. MastCell ^Talk 19:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, it's a lovely answer. Unfortunately, it means that we have significant factual errors in the article. It looks like I need to become an instant expert on melanoma.

However, your note reminded me, O Discouraged One: Do you want to write a new article? I've got a stellar source at [4] (account info at [5]) for Cancer-related pain. This also looks great, and PMID 20551720 might lead to good things. You could send it to DYK. Writing that article would be much more fun than dealing with that HIV denialist, and I'm just not getting around to it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

More fun than dealing with AIDS denialists? OK. It looks like a worthy subject for a Wikipedia article. I'll put it on my list and try to work on it. Part of me thinks that the governance of Wikipedia has become so myopically piss-poor and out of touch with this site's ostensible goals that I should abstain from contributing content and spend my time working to address site governance. But writing articles is more interesting, and it's what drew me to this site in the first place. So I will give it a shot, although I anticipate greatly reduced Wikipedia time in the next 1-2 months due to external demands. MastCell ^Talk 21:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

← image base puns? - 2/0 (cont.) 01:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

	Valued Contributor Award
	You have been identified as a valued contributor and your efforts are appreciated. We are honored to present you with the Valued Contributor Award and we thank you for donating your time, expertise and effort to Wikipedia. Keep up the good work. Thanks. (more details)

I just wanted to say thank you for many, many things you do all around Wikipedia. And a special thanks for your work in Wikipedia operations. I find your input extremely valuable and sincerly appreciate your efforts. Thanks. - Hydroxonium (H₃O⁺) 11:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

You'll better ask Anthonyhcole. He is the one that knows best the proccess. I have only offered myself to help. --Garrondo (talk) 07:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Whatamidoing. I replied at User talk:Garrondo#Statistics.

And I share the sentiment expressed in the above three threads. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you—all of you—for your kind comments. I've been a little distracted, and haven't properly acknowledged the happy notes. Please take this as a down payment on my expression of delight at working with so many exemplary editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Heat is either a physical agent or a form of radiation I think? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a form of radiation (infrared).

But the source treats them as separate categories, because the actual mechanism for the second group is (appears to be) the cell division and inflammation inherent in the tissue's repair process, rather than the thing that triggers the need for repairs. The broken bone example is probably the easiest to understand: The child falls off the playground structure and breaks a long bone. Later, the child turns up with osteosarcoma in the same bone. Naturally, the family immediately believes that the two are related (even though that's strongly disputed). But even if we were to grant that breaking a bone caused bone cancer, would that make playgrounds "carcinogenic"? Well, no. It would be the cell division/inflammation/repair process that resulted in the bone cancer, not the playground. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Since the time that you have commented at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Unblock_request (where there was some messy brainstorming about what terms are necessary for an unblock), a specific proposal has been made by Doc James about the restrictions/conditions that will come into effect upon the user being unblocked. Your comments/views on this proposal are welcome. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Nice work. Though the comment you made about glossaries being a common use of definition lists has got me thinking that I read somewhere that definition lists should not be used for glossaries. I'll have I look to see if I can find it, or if I was mistaken. SilkTork *^YES! 00:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Found it. It's in a working draft - Wikipedia:Manual of Style (glossaries), and it's about the wiki-markup: Wikipedia:GLOSSARIES#Definition_list_wikimarkup. So it's not saying that definition lists are inappropriate for glossaries, but that the wiki-markup is buggy. SilkTork *^YES! 00:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like we need a warning to omit blank lines between items. I fix this problem routinely for non-ordered lists: you'll find dozens, if not hundreds of instances of "One list of multiple items, not multiple single-item lists (per WP:ACCESS#Lists)" in my contributions' edit summaries. I suppose I ought to start doing it with definition lists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I'm probably absolutely wrong, and I sincerely hope very much that I am, but as we have had disagreements in the past where your comments were borderline civil/PA, I am unfortunately rather getting the opinion that you are perhaps answering a lot of posts I make on Wikipedia, and that your answers may possibly be directed more at me personally than addressing the actual topic. Please accept my most humble apologies If I am wrong. Regards, --Kudpung (talk) 05:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you're wrong. But it's an easy mistake to make: I answer a lot of posts, as a quick glance at my contributions will prove.

Note that I'm sympathetic to your complaint about GA reviewers overstepping the criteria. (I wrote WP:GACN, after all: you would find it difficult to locate an editor who is more sympathetic about this problem.) I just don't think that changing WP:EMBED would solve the problem you've identified, without creating worse problems elsewhere. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad I'm wrong on that. Thank you for being sympathetic to my complaint. I have read the essay you wrote with some help (and a lot of interference interference), and while I did not of course learn anything new from it, I found it to be an excellent nutshell work on points of GA reviewing, and I will link to it often to save having to write my own spiel when it is needed. The decision whether to use bulleted lists or prose is of course one of common sense, and I'm sure a GA such as Malvern, Worcestershire would look even more ridiculous than Milford Haven (both GAs that I have worked on). My mission in starting the discussion at WP:EMBED was more by way of being a devil's advocate, so to speak, because an admin who not only insists that on GA he reviews the Notable people section is written entirely in prose, but they also leave dry messages on not-yet-adopted-for-reviewed GAC to the effect that the Notable People section had better be changed into prose before anyone will consider reviewing it. Even curiouser, at the same time, this very admin adopts the opposite stance at the talk WP:EMBED and fails to even notice that the whole discussion is in reality centred around his attitude at actual GA reviews. What to do? Kudpung (talk) 12:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, WhatamIdoing. You have new messages at Talk:Malvern, Worcestershire.
Message added 16:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

FYI Kudpung (talk) 16:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Is taking the article to FAC a goal? I think it highly unlikely to pass without inline citations for at least each of the living people. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Ultimately yes, and we know what has to be done. However, no work has been undertaken yet, nor is it even scheduled yet by the WP:WORCS team (In the UK, Wikipedia content building is often collaborative). The effort however, is to keep the article free of interference, and to maintain its GA standard until we are ready to devote time to it among all the other tasks that await our action at WP:WORCS. Unfortunately, drive-by taggers have taken to disrupting this balance recently, and more unfortunately by the same apparently compulsive GA rewiewer mentioned above. Kudpung (talk) 12:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

So we agree that the section in question actually does need to have its refs improved. Why do you say that noting this agreed-upon fact is "interference"? What does the tag interfere with? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

No, we don't agree, at least only in so far as the article will be proposed for FA in a year or so. At the moment it is fully GA compliant, and none of the WP:WORCS team apparently understood which notable person, if any, was intended to be be addressed by the tag. The situation is the meantime resolved, but I may be taking the matter further with the admin who is following me around. Kudpung (talk) 07:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The list makes statements about living people, yes? And it does not contain WP:Inline citations to back up all of those statements, right?

The community generally wants all statements about living people, except for those that are both blindingly obvious and wholly benign, to be followed by an inline citation.

This article does not do this. It probably should. In fact, having failed to do this, the list probably does not meet the sourcing requirements at WP:GACR, even though it was passed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

FYI. Regarding our earlier conversations on making WP articles accessible, you may be interested to know I am now making a fool of myself at WT:FAC. -- Colin°^Talk 11:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. It will be some hours before I have time to read it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi WhatamIdoing,

You left me a message on my talk page concerning edit warring. Learning from that, it seemed like Reisio (talk · contribs) was convinced, but I guess not. I've started another discussion concerning Reisio's actions, perhaps you you can join in? I appreciate your feedback. Thanks and kind regards, --Soetermans | drop me a line | what I'd do now? 19:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice, and for resisting the temptation to join in the fray. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello WhatamIdoing,

I have another question for you. I have begun many Wikipedia pages and helped to develop others. I am currently working on a page called concept inventory. I observed that in most other pages I have worked on, a box containing a table of contents appears when I inserted subheadings. For example, on the occupational health psychology entry there is a box called contents.

How can I have such a box appear in the concept inventory entry? I don't remember what I did that led to having a box of contents appear in the other Wikipedia entries.

Please respond on my talk page. And as in the past, I thank you for your help.Iss246 (talk) 02:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I solved the problem myself. I needed to put more subheadings in the entry. Thanks anyway.Iss246 (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations. There is, by the way, more information at WP:TOC, including ways to force the page to display a table of contents even if it has too few sections. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I really appreciate you posting the WP:MED welcome note to the students' discussion pages! Dylanstaley (talk) 20:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Wikipedia can be a very complicated place, and I want the students to know that there are resources available to them, and that we're glad to have them here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the wise counsel. Bus stop (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. It means "the pillars". A few related words:

• "ركائز" = "pillars"
• "الركيزة" = "the pillar"
• "ركيزة" = "pillar" --Meno25 (talk) 08:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Cheers. --Meno25 (talk) 16:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

W: I noticed you put these up on a couple of users talk pages, and you should be aware that some of the people who supported QG in that site ban request weren't doing so because they particularly wanted to support QG, but rather because they have a kneejerk reaction to oppose anything I happen to do. you might need to be a little selective in who you make the request from is all I'm saying. I hope you find someone to help, though. --Ludwigs2 15:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, "selective" was exactly what I was hoping to avoid, per CANVAS.

I have seen no evidence so far that any of the "supporters" that I notified can be bothered to help deal with the problems QG creates—problems that we would not have, except they opposed the proposal for a site ban. (One—an editor I respect—was previously involved in the discussion; two have made receptive comments, but failed to take any sort of action.) So you may be right, that some of them were playing politics rather than dealing with the specifics of the situation, but I suspect that it more cases, it was simple ignorance of the problem (that is, the problems never impinged upon them personally, so clearly no problems existed), which misapprehension can be corrected with better information.

Fundamentally, though, I don't care why they made their choice to support QG: I care that the mess get cleaned up, and that it not get dumped back in our laps every few weeks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I beleive QG's supporters wanted to avoid a more general attack on scientific POV, to make sure alt-med doesn't creep back into prominence. I think there's recognition that although QG's methods can be frustrating or obstructionist, that at least he's advocating in general for science, which isn't the worst thing to advocate for. The way to handle the situation, IMO, rather than a site ban, is just to have more editors consistently weigh in on disputes where QG is involved. That's the only way for consenus to be demonstrated and to distinguish inter-editor squabbles from a consistent single-editor problem. Otherwise, it just looks like a bar-fight from the outside, and it's not always clear how it started. Also, does QG need to be notified of discussions like this? Ocaasi (talk) 17:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Editors who cause this much friction, even if they are doing it "for the right cause", harm Wikipedia, full stop. Good editors do not have a block log a mile long. Good editors do not find themselves the subject of more than two dozen ANI/related reports, including multiple proposals for bans. Good editors do not require full-time babysitters to settle endless strings of squabbles. Good editors calm down these situations, rather than inflaming them with obstructionist tactics, demands to use only sources that give the right answer, selectively quotation of advice pages, and wikilawyering.

(Only ANI-type boards require notification.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

yeah, it's really a systemic problem: there are too many editors (and sysops) who follow an 'ends justifies the means' approach to fringe topics. deeply entrenched battleground attitude... heck, the bulk of my unpleasant reputation on project comes from trying to take a balanced and neutral perspective on fringe topics and having to play Billy Goat Gruff with science editors doing troll-like stuff that would get them indef-banned if they were anyone else (unfortunately for all concerned, I play Billy Goat Gruff very well). I can't see any simple or easy way to change it, though, because it is deeply entrenched. --Ludwigs2 18:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Well I don't know how to deal with the specific editor issues (I frankly think QG knows that there aren't too many chances left before another major block or topic ban), but as for the systemic issue, I think the way to deal with it is just getting editors to 'break cabal' and discuss issues without regard to general stances. BullRangifer has been great with this, and others have stepped in too to just keep the focus on content improvement while keeping selective policy absolutism under check and ideological promotion at a distance. Ocaasi (talk) 18:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I hope it's alright for me to jump into this thread. I've been seeing this discussed from my watch list at multiple locations. If you would like I will discuss things with QG but I need more info about what this problem is about. WhatamIdoing, if you would email me the latest problems you are having I will try to see if QG will listen to me. I am asking for emails because I will handle this through email only. QG gets attacked a lot, sometimes he is upsetting people and other times he is just attacked. The bad faith being shown above is also a reason for me to want to take it to email. So if you would like for me to talk to him you know how to get a hold of me. I will make sure that I get his permission to talk to you about what is said. Taking all of this to email seems like the best way to stop the drama going on now about everything and future drama that could start up. Let me close this by saying that all I'm trying to do is see if I can help. Thanks for listening to me, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

PS: I came here to bring to your attentions this since I thought you might be interested since you are aware of this editor. Be well, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Crohnie. You are always welcome on my talk page. I was previously aware of the ANI discussion about Kumioko. I am not at all sure what the best resolution should be, and I am not at all confident that the discussion will be productive. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, well last I saw s/he retired from the project. I hope it's just a break but it sounded like s/he was leaving for good which I think would be a shame. As for the other matter we've been talking about, I have hopes to start tomorrow on that. I saw the doc today and was put back on some heavy meds again. :( So I may need a bit more time than I previously thought but I will do it and do it the best I can that I promise. Take care and be well, --CrohnieGal^Talk 00:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, you know what good-bye usually means. And it's almost always the power users who make the biggest stink over the shortest 'retirements', and announcing his retirement at so many pages certainly smells like he's hoping people will beg him to reconsider.

(Honest, I know how to spell... it's just my fingers don't always agree to type the word I have in mind.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Just trying to discuss this succession of edits on the [page] for the Leukemia article.--Senor Freebie (talk) 04:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost Would like to interview you with regards to WikiProject Medicine. If interested, could you reply on my talkpge? Thanks, Thomas888b (Say Hi) 20:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

could you answer the bold questions here? Thomas888b (Say Hi) 21:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to stop by my talk page and write out a helpful pointer concerning citations (specifically that <ref> style citations are not necessarily preferred over other types). I have come to appreciate this reality to a significantly greater extent than I did when I made the edit you fixed, but I always am appreciative when someone takes the time to be helpful (and when someone knows how to offer criticism without being a jerk - a quality and art that even I surely need to work on!) I will try to be more acutely aware of the reference policy you pointed out in the future. Cheers! Spiral5800 (talk) 23:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to leave your kind message. I'm happy to help. Wikipedia is an incredible place, isn't it? (Overly complicated sometimes, but still incredible.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

You mentioned a script that has trouble identifying redirects/targets when tagging for WPMED. Is that something I can help you with? Rich Farmbrough, 16:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC).

User:WhatamIdoing/Temp.js. I don't know Javascript, and didn't write it. I tried just to remove the bit that duplicates a gadget, which I thought would be easy, and I couldn't even manage that. I'd be totally happy to have you fix it for me, but I'm not sure how much work that would entail. (It was named when I foolishly thought I'd actually finish assessments some day.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Note change, let me know what you think. Somehow we have to navigate between "anyone can edit" and "some people might know where the better sources are". I see that as the nub of the "expert vs COI" issue - anyone can add information, it's probably just eaiser for the "COI" account to have the sources on hand, or know where they are on the website.

Also note that I'm not bothering to reply to Bittergrey's comments on the talk page unless something besides hair-splitting comes up. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I saw the change, and I think it's fine. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Message here[6]. PPdd (talk) 06:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• An example of my NPOV edit style is in the highly edit war prone homeopathy-related pseudoscience article anthroposophical medicine. I went in and deleted NRS stuff like mad, to yells and screams from both sides. After my many edits, editors struck their comments, and I got these unsolicited comments from both sides[7], resulting in this[8], and the article has been unchanged ever since[9]. I am editing in good faith, and others have ulitmately agreed with my initial deletions, even though they initially strongly objected.
• On another matter, if you have an example of content that justifies acupuncture point existing independently of acupuncture, i.e., an example of sufficient content that would belong at acupuncture point, but not belong at acupuncture, to justify its independent existence per WP:CONTENTFORK "redundancy", please provide it, and I will change my vote from "merge and redirect", to "keep". Otherwise, I would request that you reconsider your "keep" vote without considering any of my own edits as a context for your decision, as I am relatively ephemeral and objectively small. PPdd (talk) 16:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not assuming bad faith. In fact, I am assuming that you are doing the best you possibly can to improve the encyclopedia, and that the difference between what you are doing and what I think should be done is entirely due to your WP:COMPETENCE not rising to the level that I wish it did. Making a good-faith effort is a necessary, but not sufficient, characteristic of good editors. I believe that your competence could improve, and that you could become a good editor, but you will have to stop making these mistakes and start listening to guidance from other editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Your user page says "they he or she". Did you mean "they she or he"? :) PPdd (talk) 22:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

{{User singular they:No}} is a standard userbox. I see no particular reason to rearrange its words. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Many, many people believe you would be a good Admin. I know in mid-2010, you declined comment on Adminship but in 2009 you mentioned being interested in being a "partial admin". I wonder if you've seen Boing! said Zebedee's recent RfA as it is somewhat similar to that idea? Not that being an Admin is necessarily fun, but we need more Admins and you'd be a great one. Thanks in advance for any reply. - Hydroxonium (H₃O⁺) 00:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

This would be a rare RFA that I'd vote in, because I'm actually confident you'd be excellent at it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

If you're considering this; you definitely have the IQ and productivity for those duties. I haven't had enough to do with you to be certain I have the right impression of your overall behaviour, but I don't recall one instance of you admitting you made a mistake. I see you jumping to conclusions and deciding on positions on the flimsiest of investigations and not shifting your position when it's obvious you've been premature. Annoying traits in ordinary editors, but quite toxic in intelligent admins. I might be wrong. And you're patronising in your dealings with editors less experienced than yourself. I have no doubt about that.

So, if you're thinking about it, at least apply your intelligence to what I've just said and consider for a moment that I might be right. If I am, it's not fatal. If I am, just use your intelligence to learn some humility. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Anthony,

Sure, you might be right, although it seems to me that I correct a lot of my own errors and type the words "I apologize" a lot for someone who appears to never admit to making a mistake. IMO it's not possible to reach my level of activity on Wikipedia without making mistakes, and as everyone makes mistakes, it's silly to resist fixing them.

Almost 99% of Wikipedians at any given time, including everyone else who has posted in this section, could be considered less experienced than me. A few of these editors find me highly irritating, e.g., a couple of former editors who blame me for their indefinite community bans. I am doubtless a thorn in the side of a couple of people who stay busy with policy pages. (Writing advice pages is far harder than it looks.) There are a handful of POV pushers who wish we'd never crossed paths. So there are certainly people who dislike me or find me inconvenient. Most of them, however, do not seem to think me patronizing, and it is my experience that what seems patronizing to a third party does not always seem that way to the people on the receiving end of the comments.

I know that you're upset that I'm not one of PPdd's fans. As it happens, I'm never a fan of editors that create needless drama, no matter how good their final product might be. I support good products; I do not support needlessly upsetting a dozen people in the process. Part of being a good editor is figuring out how to disturb the fewest number of people while getting your work done. To give a relevant example, a good editor cleans up an article by quietly replacing bad information with good, not by deleting 90% of the article, prompting six discussions on four different pages, and then eventually, finally, days or weeks later, adding the good information. The critical difference isn't in the product: the critical difference is in the level of disruption to the community.

I am sorry that you are unhappy with me, because I like you and think that you're doing good work with WP:Invitation to edit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

just a note in passing because I noticed this thread: you and I don't always see eye to eye, but I'd definitely give you a thumbs up on an RfA. You're level-headed, you're not given to being snowed by people's bull, you're generally fair-minded (even if a bit of a grumpa-lumpa at times...). You'd be an asset. just my 2¢. --Ludwigs2 07:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

		Civility Award
		For your friendly and civil 2¢ here. A little civility can go a long way in dealing with good faith newbies who are unaware of our policies and guidelines but are willing to communicate.Yoenit (talk) 16:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Yoenit. I appreciate it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I like you too, Whatamidoing, and agree with most of what you say and do. PPdd is the salient example of what I'm talking about above, though not the only one. He went to Acupuncture point and deleted most of it because it was simply wrong. After that was done there was no content left that wasn't better covered (or at least should be covered) in Acupuncture, so he nominated it for deletion as a fork. Several regulars at AfD thought they recognized that behaviour. "Aah. The old strip-it-to-a-stub-so-it-fails-at-AfD technique." On that basis, these editors restored the pre-PPdd content for "transparency." When it was explained to them that every edit PPdd had made was good-faith removal of dubious or just-made-up material (you may argue the merits of some of the edits if you wish, I guarantee you won't argue against many of them) these editors withdrew their objections.

You then came to the AfD and made the same shallow assessment of PPdd's behaviour and motives. That's fine. Geniuses are as prone to that kind of thing as anybody. I do it occasionally. My problem is that, after PPdd patiently and lucidly explained that each edit was a good faith edit with valid (and mostly sound) reasoning behind it, after WLU went through the article and gutted it to almost the same extent as PPdd, I haven't seen an acknowledgment from you that PPdd was acting in good faith (though much too fast for anybody's liking).

As for "I know that you're upset that I'm not one of PPdd's fans." You don't. Because I'm not. I couldn't care less. Really.

The "drama" PPdd "is creating" The drama PPdd is creating is all because he works too fast for mortal editors. He's out of step with Wikipedia's more glacial pace, and has a dozen discussions happening at any given moment on non-trivial subjects. People concerned with those subjects can't keep up, and resent having to put aside what they're doing to deal with his avalanche. I think you've accused him of being tendentious (forgive me if I'm wrong) . His behaviour is unintentionally disruptive for the reasons I've just stated, but not tendentious. (Interpolation: I got it wrong. He is tendentious wrt alt med sources) WLU is de facto mentoring him in the most delightful way, and has recently explained to him what I've just touched on, so I expect to see some kind of adaptive behaviour from now on. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC) Updated

On at least one point, we disagree: PPdd is creating drama because he works too slowly for other editors. One day, he removes (poorly) sourced content. Several days later, and surrounded by drama, he finally adds good content.

A better editor would have done this in a single step: Replace bad information with good, right now, in the same window, as single transaction or as two back-to-back transactions, with no 'save page and wait until people have screamed for several days' in between.

I don't know why PPdd takes this approach. Perhaps he likes the drama? Perhaps he hasn't thought about how much that needless drama hurts Wikipedia? Perhaps he hates AltMed puffery so much that he has to kill it now, regardless of the consequences? I don't know. I don't even really care. But I do believe that it needs to stop. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

OK. Slow in that sense. He had early success with that method at a pseudoscience article (which surprised me when I saw it) so is probably wondering what all the drama is about when he tries it elsewhere. WLU, if you're lurking, do you know if the impropriety of this method has been pointed out to PPdd in these explicit terms? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

This should have been done before, but WAID, we're talking about you here. It's mostly polite. Gushy even. Borderline love-fest.

Let's not forget PPdd is relatively new, 7K worth of edits but, given his editing pattern only maybe a third of those are mainspace and a lot are probably multiple edits to reach an end point that an experienced editor would get to in one. I see PPdd like I saw myself at around that time - enthusiastic and clueless. Probably why I'm putting in so much time. I didn't realize there was a difference between policies and guidelines until I'd been editing for over a year. The point is to make PPdd a better editor, and for that he needs feedback. And let's not forget his good points - no edit warring, no blocks, takes (at least my) suggestions and criticism, defends his points substantively (as he understands it) and really, really tries to be open and transparent in his edits with other editors. I see a future Hrafn, or even a future me. I think overall PPdd's never seen what a "normal" editing process and page looks like, and I made this very point yesterday (User talk:PPdd#On good faith). So yes, I do think the impropriety of the method has been pointed out (by me) and even if he did make the cringe inducing statement that he made the change without reading my rationale, he still made my suggested change [10]. And his edit count seems a little down today [11].

Anyone know how to get a better graph on contribution history? I'd like something with more than a couple days on it.

Anyway, he's tackling challenging subjects but trying to do so with sources and policies. He's bungling the more subtle ones, missing out on nuances, and trying to change the policies (gah!) but he's not tripping over the two biggest signs of an unredeemable editor - edit warring and sockpuppeting. I return to my metaphor of a puppy - sometimes cute, often annoying, way to energetic, and eventually grows up to be a dog. And you can eat a dog.

Obviously, that's the signal that I'm done. Thank you, you're beautiful! Thank you! (applause, and fade out). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Sweet Jebus, I got the answer to my question (it's the "analyze all edits" option [12]). 80% of 7,000 edits occurred in the past two months. Talk about raw number of edits being no measure of value. So don't think of PPdd as a 3 year contributor with 7K worth of edits, think of him as a 2-month-old noob. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Soxred's counter, which is linked on Special:Contributions, shows the monthly edit counts by default.

I hope that your rehab project stops all of this needless drama. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

You're not the only one. I also find it aggravating, particularly on pages where I'm an active editor. I haven't looked at homeopathy in a while, and at this point simply don't want to. But if new editors don't come along, who will do the work when the old ones leave? Particularly when contributions and new accounts have been leveling-off. I was trying the same thing with BitterGrey but the only thing that seemed to work was nuking the page back to zero. That, however, did seem to work. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I was not watching these pages, and under common etiquette it is “good form” to notify an editor if they are being discussed. But being good form does not mean one should so notify. Here the proof - I was accused of increasing drama. If the accusation is true, then I should shut up. If the accusation is not true and I respond, then I have increased drama, so I should not respond and shut up. As Mr. Spock would say, thus “logic dictates that PPdd should shut up”. But since I just responded, so did not shut up, this proves that I am illogical, and incidentally shows, that I should not have been notified. :) PPdd (talk) 02:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Have I mentioned I find your humour inscrutable?

Yes, you're correct, it's common courtesy to notify an editor they are being discussed and it was our lapse in courtesy to not do so. If this were AN or ANI, it would be a grievous breach of etiquette to not alert you, individual talk pages are considerably looser. But still, but still, and you have my apologies for that. I will venture that (in my mind anyway) we were more discussing our individual reactions to and understanding of your editing than specifically identifying absolute problems, and given the amount of feedback you're getting across multiple pages, I don't know how much more helpful this rather inchoate section would be. If a coherent conclusion were being reached or an action being planned, I would certainly have made a point of mentioning it. Thank you for taking the discussion with obvious good humour, and I hope you see that much of the conversation was an effort to sell your merits with all the attendant implied compliments.

That being said (there is always a "that being said" when I'm involved), I do urge you to take WAID's advice and slow down, at least for a while. You're in probably the most contested pages you'll find in the medicine section of wikipedia (though I would advise you to stay away from chronic fatigue syndrome, for at least a couple more months). Probably the only pages that would be more troublesome would be the ones related to ethnic identity, land occupation disputes and probably sports teams. There is tremendous merit to developing a nuanced understanding of the trickier policies, and I think the only way you get that by focusing on one controversial article at a time rather than six.

Sweet Dog, I should charge for this advice, it's gold! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 03:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• (1) Re my humor. I lectured on film at stanford for 8 years, and was often in the campus press. I was decribed as "the guy who does standup before the films". Nice to know people took my lectures so seriously.
• (2) Re my humor and my cauing disruption and drama - What is it that mathematicians are always trying to prove, but physicists believe because their is such overwhelming evidence? ... That mathematicians are funnier than physicists. That almost caused a food fight when I came up with it at my first dinner at caltech, at a table that was half mathematicians and half physicists. I then said that the mathematicians are caltech are a bunch of closet physicists, to take care of the other half of the table, but I still did not get a food fight... what did I do wrong? I seem to be having much better success at WP.
• (3)Re my inscrutable humor - I once came up with a measure of quality of a joke that has to do with inscrutability. You know your joke is good when you are giving a lecture to a general crowd, and when you tell a joke, the logician in the front row rolls their eyes and slaps their forehead and says, "that's the dumbest joke I ever heard", but the rest of the audience is still performing the calculation.
• (4)An even stronger measure is when that logician rolls their eyes so hard I need a sharp pencil to get them back down again. (I varied this when it came up that experimental particle physics departments are hugely funded, yet mathematics departments only need pencils and paper. I pointed out that the pencils were to get the eyes back down after a mathematician tells a joke and the victim's eyes roll too far.) :) PPdd (talk) 04:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• Discussion continued here[13].

Thanks for some help. Really hope Wiki is a nice place, not a pack of experienced crocodiles. You may correct my English since I'm not a native speaker. Would be really nice if you follow the quarrel with Ronz for some time, or even get interested and buy yourself a PocketBook ;) PB could be used to follow Wiki while on a go ;) Please have no hurry and maybe wait for more user comments over PocketBook on Amazon ;) I hope everything is OK about my writing to you... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brainsteinko (talk • contribs) 07:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, WhatamIdoing. You have new messages at Phearson's talk page.
Message added 21:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Because I have noticed you commenting at the current RfC regarding Pending Changes, I wanted to invite you to the IRC channel for pending changes. If you are not customarily logged into the IRC, use this link. This under used resource can allow real time discussion at this particularly timely venture of the trial known as Pending Changes. Even if nothing can come from debating points there, at least this invitation is delivered with the best of intentions and good faith expectations. Kind regards. My76Strat 09:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Whoever you are, and however you found out I was in an edit war, I greatly appreciate the links you posted on my talk-page. WP:Randy in Boise made my day! :-) Optimering (talk) 13:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad that you liked it. Good luck resolving those disputes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Please look at the article Tahash, and on the Discussion Page: "Consensus on Timeline" give your opinion about the Timeline. Thank you. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 13:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you need to stop edit warring to get the WP:TRUTH into the article. I have replied on your talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Others who responded on the Talk page did not make the assumptions you made. I already explained there that, normally, responses have been made within a very short time, just as there were today (see the times of the edits). That has been my normal experience, and before this current dispute I had no other, which led me in good faith to expect the same turn-around (see the times of edits on the talk page history).

Initially, only one editor, Joe407, took issue with the original Timeline edit, and he wanted the text to remain hidden on the talk page where it was unlikely to be seen; and he did nothing to obtain consensus from the community. I did not declare that I had won the argument—I wanted others to have opportunity to see the issue and respond. It cannot be discussed if it is hidden away. I do not believe his opinion represents the consensus of the community as a whole, and so far the responses are 5 to 1 in favor of retention. (Obviously a WP:Consensus at this point, not WP:TRUTH.) To obtain a "wider level" of genuine consensus, open display of the text with banner alert and an active request for response from the community is entirely appropriate. I actively sought a "wider level" of consensus, but he did not. Your own ready response is duly noted (see the time stamp), but you did not post it on the Talk Page for others to see (so 5:2 in favor of retention). And you did not say that you were aware of the dispute before I requested your opinion.

I have reviewed the policies you cited on my talk page, and did not locate in WP:BRD or in WP:Consensus the stipulation you claim it contains: that another editor should put back the reverted text after discussion.

Now that I have actively sought responses from ordinary readers, and from a multitude of editors at three WikiProject sites, to obtain a genuine consensus from the community, a genuine Discussion is now taking place. Genuine consensus of the community should be the result. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 21:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but when I see "It cannot be discussed if it is hidden away", I hear "I believe the editors are too stupid to find the previous revisions in the page history". Is that what you mean? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering if bishop-accountability.org should be "blacklisted" as a reference? It has always seemed to me to be non-scholarly. Kind of a blog with no editing per se. Fine as an "outside ref" for someone, but poor as a WP:RELY source. With the new revelation that it uses copyrighted material, it seems to me that that would be a very good reason to disqualify them from being used directly. What are your thoughts? Student7 (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Naturally, I'm concerned about the WP:LINKVIO problem. I've been weeding them out, but last I checked, there will still about 50 links to bishop-accountability.org/news/ left in the main namespace, and an equal number elsewhere.

I'm not sure that it's necessary to blacklist the whole site. My search indicates that everything in their /news/ directory is a copyright violation, but I'm not sure that everything on the entire site is. In particular, I've seen links to the /resources/ directory, and I haven't looked that up to see whether those pages are all also copyvios. Have you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

No. I'm no expert. More concerned about the blog-ish (non-scholarly) material. I will defer to your judgment. Student7 (talk) 13:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The copyvio stuff is pretty straightforward: cut-and-paste copies of newspaper and wire service articles, with no statement that they've been properly licensed, are practically always copyright violations.

In the absence of a campaign to spam the links, I'm not sure that we'd be able to get the site blacklisted just for being blog-ish. Such links are not reliable sources, and they're not appropriate external links, but they're not the sort of thing we'd bother blacklisting. Also, blacklisting is cross-namespace, which means that you couldn't link to the page in a discussion or on a user page. It's conceivable that someone might have a legitimate reason to provide a link to blog-ish content during a discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

You said, "AFAICT, the only people who are demanding that it be turned off "just to keep the promise" are the people who very much want it to be turned off permanently" - I want to assure you that that is not true.

I hope you might have seen from the postings I've made on the RfC - I am not "anti-PC". However, I do strongly object to current use without consensus. I think the only way forwards is, one step backwards - to adhere to the previous agreement regarding a 2-month trial. Please see the very rough draft here.  Chzz  ►  18:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Would you be willing to help me do some copy-editing? ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 22:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

That's a really huge list. ==Further reading== sections are commonly limited to maybe a dozen sources. Have you considered pruning the list? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello:

I was wondering if you are familiar with the current status of a situation that made/makes me SO MAD MY HEAD IS ABOUT TO EXPLODE ... I mean the situation where the User/Idiot named "Kwami", or something like that, went around willy-nilly changing/moving/redirecting a large number of oncology-related pages by inserting hyphens, giving us combined-small-cell-non-small-cell-carcinoma and other idiotic tripe. What is up with that, sir? Can you elaborate for me at your convenience.

His hyper-anal pseudo-vandalism (sorry) has got me to the point that I just feel like leaving Wikipedia, because just looking at his messes makes me want to puke the whole time I'm on one of the pages.

Any help you can give me, at your convenience of course, would be GREATLY appreciated.

Very-best-regards: Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 02:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Cliff,

It doesn't look like Kwami has moved anything for a couple of days.[18] He moved a bunch about a month ago, and then was chewed out at WT:MED and WT:MEDMOS, because although his moves are grammatically correct, they're not what the sources seem to use (for the most part). He more or less agreed to stop (except for small-cell carcinoma, which is hyphenated by a significant minority of sources), but I don't believe that all of the mess got cleaned up properly.

Any editor should feel free to move pages to whatever name and/or punctuation is typically used by high-quality reliable source (especially the name and/or punctuation preferred by the ICD). See [19], [20], and [21] for the relevant section of the move log.

Obviously, if Kwami moved the page to whatever title the ICD (or other high-quality reliable source) is using, then it was a valuable and helpful move that we would want to preserve. But if it is not (and it hasn't been moved since by someone else), then any editor can click the "revert" button on whichever ones need to be restored to their original placement. (Note that the button is present even if someone else has already moved it, and that you want to click the article entry, and tick the box for also moving the talk page, rather than first moving the talk page and then separately moving the article page.) ICD-O contains links to the ICD record for most large classes of malignancies; perhaps you would consider identifying and correcting any page titles as necessary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear Sir:

Thanks VERY much for your prompt, courteous, and diplomatic reply. I understand, and will follow up in coming days per your instructions TO THE LETTER.

I feel much-better-now.

Best:

Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 03:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks once more to you and Chzz, who bought me a cup of tea. My apologies to all.

Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 15:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)