User talk:WhatamIdoing/Archive 14

Active discussions


Your question to me

I am very interested in translating English articles into Haitian Creole (kreyol ayisien) but only articles that will help provide health information. I'm not into biographies, television plot lines, video games, towns, actresses from India, paraphilias, theoretical physics or sports. I am not completely fluent but with a haitian proof reader I can certainly translate a lot of medical content into Haitian. What is your connection? I'm reading your talk page and and cannot figure out why you would be the one to ask me to do this. I converse with a steward on occasion and would have expected him to ask me. Actually I'm flattered and would enjoy the challenge of improving my haitian language skills. Best Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  01:22, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
My original interest was work-related: About a year and a half ago, I tried to find an active editor there. It was frustrating. There are zero admins. The Village Pump is full of mass messages and almost nothing else—I don't think it's been archived since 2007. I believe that the only active editor is ht:User:Arsendis. It seriously needs someone to WP:REVIVE it.
I'd love to have you translating health-related articles (especially women's health and diseases that are of greater interest in Haiti vs wealthy countries). Are you familiar with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Translation task force? They create decent, well-sourced articles, simplify the language (at least for the introduction) to make translation easier, and then search for translators. I can't promise you a Haitian proofreader, but User:CFCF might be able to help us find someone—and if not, then a lot of us got our start by correcting typos, and perhaps one of the newbies (and there are some; look for the non-automatic ones in that log) would see your efforts and stick around.
If you want, I'm willing to beg User:Amire80 to move ht.wp up on his list for the new mw:Content translation tool, which is not only convenient but would handle all of the license-related attribution automatically for you. (Check it out at simple: if you want—you'll have to enable it in Beta Features there, but after that you can try it out for a userpage. It's still got some bugs and doesn't work in all browsers, but it's really popular at some smaller projects.
What do you think? Does it sound interesting? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, thanks for the ping!
Bfpage thanks for your willingness to translate to Haitian. I am glad to tell that WhatamIdoing doesn't need to beg me, because the ContentTranslation tool was enabled in the Haitian Creole Wikipedia a few minutes ago and you can use it to translate articles easily from English, French, or any other language with which you're comfortable.
You can read a guide to using ContentTranslation.
If you have some time, it would also be nice if you could localize ContentTranslation's user interface. (If you don't have an account at that site, please create one at its main page.)
Thanks! --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 15:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Also, let us know if you try to create that account and run into trouble. It's a bit complicated, and we can help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing I've tried to use this tool and I am having a lot of difficulty. I went ahead and translated an article this morning from English to Kreyol just to see how difficult it would be without the tool and it is pretty tedious as I am unfamiliar with inserting the special characters used in Kreyol. I asked for help in the translate wiki IRC chat room and they won't let me create an account because I am not a software developer. How do I get the ability to translate in my 'home' english wikipedia? It seems like it should be easy but I'm just not getting it. Also, there are no administrators in the Haitian Wikipedia and I have asked the steward Mentifisto to make me one so at least I can block serious vandalism and spam. I would hate to put in hours of translation to then have it destroyed by vandalism.
  Bfpage |leave a message  19:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
You can't believe how happy I am to have a good Wikipedian over there. Let's see if I've got all the problems in order:
  1. Special characters: are these anything other than ´ and ` on top of vowels?
  2. is for the interface ("Edit" and "View history" and the like). Amir, can you talk to Siebrand and see what's needed here?
  3. Content translation here at en.wp: This might be possible in a few weeks, but I'm not sure that it would help with the special characters. Although, while I'm thinking about it, Amir, you probably don't want this to happen the week of 29 June, because that's when Anomie and his team are planning to break half the bots (well, to be fair, they're planning to fix something important that has been announced for months, but the effect is that a couple dozen bots are in need of urgent repairs).
  4. Admin request: I think this is a reasonable idea, although I don't know if they have a policy with any firm requirements.
Anything else? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:18, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Special characters are, indeed, the ´ and ` on top of vowels. We don't currently have a special character inserter in ContentTranslation, but we may try to reuse the one from VisualEditor some day (I don't know when).
Bfpage, is it possible for you to use a Haitian or a French keyboard layout on your computer? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 20:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I will look for a quick way to enter the special characters. There really are only the two that you mentioned above. I can't waste my time creating a lot of content and then not be able to protect it from persistent vandalism-there has to be someone else in the ht wikipedia that can block vandals if not me. If I were to become an administrator, I would not want it to be permanent-just until someone else more qualified wants to be an administrator. I have already sent 'encouragment' messages to some of the more active editors there. I think I'm beginning to understand the translator tool and have already gone through their test(!) they put me through. I had to do some sample translations for them. I can certainly translate without the tool and already have. I'll go exploring in the ht wikipedia and see what the procedures are (if any) about administrators. Doc James seems to pretty happy about the whole idea. I'll just keep working without bots and translator tools until I hear otherwise. How do I stay up-to-date with the translation tool working in the en wikipedia or when will I know it is available? It would certainly speed up the process. Salitasyon, MadamPaj ak   Bfpage |leave a message  21:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Bfpage, we've got some information at Help:Special characters. As with most help pages, it's likely to be out of date. What kind of browser/OS are you using?
I agree that ht.wp needs some sort of admin. I've got no problem with that person being you, but if someone else is willing to take on the grunt work and let you translate, then that's great, too. Or several people, since it's always a good idea to have a few around.
I've put a note on my calendar to check Content Translation's status at the end of the month and tell WPMED if it's appeared here by then. If WP:MED's on your watchlist, then you'll see that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I've got the character problem solved because visual editor on the ht wikipedia has those characters but I will be searching for a keyboard shortcut to make things go faster. Okay, everything is all set for me, anyway. I'll keep my eye on the WP:MED and wait patiently for the translation tool to go live on the English wikipedia. Mwen pral wè ou talè.
  Bfpage |leave a message  01:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
It sounds like you've got an acceptable workaround for now. The keyboard shortcuts are simple on a Mac: ⌥ Option+e then a (or whatever vowel you want) makes á. ⌥ Option+` (same key as the ~) then a makes à. But I'd have to look up how to do it on a Windows machine.
By the way, VisualEditor has an optional 'favorites' section at the top of the Special Characters tool, so that it can be customized for each Wikipedia. The default probably does what you need, but if you ever decide that you want something else up there, I can find someone to help with that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


Meeting you again reminded me of the MEDRS FAQ. :-) I'd been intending to ask - what would you think of moving the MEDRS FAQ to WP space to make it an "official" essay, like the NPOV FAQ? That might also help to attract input from more editors. If you're interested, I'd also still like to know your thoughts on including a belief/efficacy distinction. (FWIW, on reflection I'd also change my comment from "doesn't exist" to be more like "no evidence something is being manipulated," so that the statement doesn't end up taking a philosophical position.) Sunrise (talk) 06:57, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

How about we compromise and do both? Also, would you please have a go at both Wikipedia:Alternative medicine and Wikipedia:Biomedical information, which deal with some of these points. Some of what we're talking about might fit into those.
I've also got some hopes that we'll be able to create a "WP:MEDDUE" page (or section) some day, because I think that a lot of these allegedly "MEDRS" problems are actually questions of WP:DUE weight – only, instead of telling people that if nobody except the seller of whatever says X, then it's not worth mentioning, we're telling them that it's the wrong type of source. (We ought to be telling them both.)
I still have a tab open to get back to you about our discussion, which was about two weeks ago. (It's been a bit busy recently, as you can imagine. ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good! I’ll start making some edits (so, to specify: add belief/efficacy distinction, move FAQ, go through the essays). Let me know if I’ve misunderstood or if you want to discuss any change I make. There’s no rush - I keep a lot of tabs open myself. MEDDUE also sounds like an idea I would probably support. Sunrise (talk) 09:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Both of those pages should be assumed to be in the "first draft" stage. If you want, you can blow them up and start over. I've been looking at a couple of things (e.g., "what the treatment or drug is") and wondering how much I'm going to regret them, but I can't figure out how to separate the good from the bad. I can't even give you clear examples of what would be good and bad; I just have a sense of dispute-inducing foreboding around it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:44, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
By the way, you've made Aaron very happy with the questions you posted to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Gradually enabling VisualEditor for new accounts. He's replied over at Meta, and I'm sure he would be happy to hear from you again. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! :-) I'll take a look. Sunrise (talk) 00:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Your message on my talk page re Afc

Hi, thanks for your message re my decline of Draft:Culinary tourism in India. I actually wasn't talking about the sources (although these would actually be relevant and I do make a judgement call very frequently when I review), but the way the article was constructed in a non neutral way. The lede, for instance: "Culinary tourism or food tourism is a fast growing sector in Indian tourism industry[1] and is attracting an ever increasing number of tourists from all over the world.[2] Due to sheer variety of cuisines and unique culinary experiences available in India, culinary tourism is getting attention from government[3] as well as private agencies[4] as a focus area.[5]" didn't really come over as neutral or encyclopaedic – bearing in mind also that I had checked the sources and they didn't support the text adequately. Even if the sources were watertight, you would have to clarify that this was a quote/description from a sound source, for instance, Baedeker has said that "due to the sheer variety", and so on. My decline was for advertising, which I would say is a fair summation of the text as it stands because it does read like a travel puff piece. I'm very happy to discuss this if you are making a point I haven't understood properly. Thanks for your note and best wishes. Libby norman (talk) 23:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Libby, I think you were right to decline the article. (Actually, it's a good candidate for transwiki-ing to Wikivoyage:. What you wrote was, "Please check out guidance on referencing as all material that might be challenged must have a solid reference from an unbiased source. Unbiased means a source not promoting culinary tourism in India." The problem is, if the user actually reads WP:V and WP:RS, then he's going to learn that "a solid reference from an unbiased source" is explicitly not required by our guidance on referencing. The article should be neutral in tone, but the sources can be just as biased as they want. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:21, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi, and thanks for your message. Well I think you make a fair point, but the decline reasoning was not, hopefully, confusing to the article's creator – we haven't heard that they didn't understand it. By unbiased, I meant neutral and reliable – there is contradicatory advice throughout Wiki, but the broad understanding I've encountered (and use myself) is no self-published sources and no excessively promotional sources. Indeed, I've seen or been involved in endless debates where sources have been challenged on the two points above. The key words here were: "material that might be challenged". So a source for 'it exists/is here' might not be, but 'it's the greatest tourist destination ever' might be. As ever, it depends on context and balance/breadth of references. I've used adverts in articles I've written – invariably historic and used as a source to define a date/point in time when something was done or made, so there are no hard and fast rules does come into play also. Context is everything. You are quite right – this would be a potential candidate for Wikivoyage. Libby norman (talk) 08:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
I know there have been many disputes over "non-neutral" sources. I even know that "non-neutral source" often means "source whose POV I disagree with". These disputes happen because WP:Nobody reads the directions, because if they actually read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Bias in sources or WP:BIASED, then they wouldn't go around repeating the rumor that "excessively promotional sources" are disallowed by any policy. (If you'll let years of cynicism show through, then I'll agree that we'll still have all of those disputes; the only real differences is that the disputants would be required to make up a better complaint.)
Ditto for self-published sources. Self-published sources are (sometimes) permitted for verifying information, including information that might be challenged. By the way, all corporate websites are self-published (because the corporation writes and publishes said website "itself", which makes it a "self"-published source), so if you look at either the actual rules or the actual practice, you'll see that there are some limits, but no prohibition, on WP:SPS sources. We actually want to use self-published, "promotional" sources in some cases, e.g., for verifying the specs on the latest computer by citing the self-published, entirely promotional sales materials published by its manufacturer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi WhatamIdoing, I'm going to have to go back and check all of these so I can quote them if needed – and, yes, cynicism is allowed. I have been working on the basis of no self-published (ie, subject's website, associated with subject) sources. My experience submitting articles in the early days was that these were always picked up, so I'm intrigued to see self-published computer specs are "wanted" in some instances. I enjoy the idea of "source whose POV I disagree with", which is so true. I would even venture to suggest that "I don't think this article should be on Wikipedia so I'm going to stick flags all over it" creeps in occasionally. I do a lot of work on the Fashion Project and in the early days got the distinct impression that one or two editors thought this a total irrelevance and/or every article was just going to be puffery. Granted, a lot of the articles weren't a good standard (a lot still aren't), but the subject area is not worthy?
Sourcing is an issue that possibly enables a kind of systemic bias against pages on companies and organisations – so that many clearly exist and meet notability guidelines, but sourcing becomes a battle and their pages languish in a half-baked state and/or are littered with improve flags and banners. I've seen discussions where people have described the Daily Mail and LA Times as not valid sources – the first for being tabloid rag, the second for being local, even though both are newspapers that employ dozens of fact checkers/sub editors and in both instances references were clearly being used to support factual material in the company article. Of course, often company pages aren't helped by clumsy inhouse PR or paid contributor involvement that makes every future edit by anyone a focus of suspicion. This stalemate feeds into FA, GA and all the other gong stuff. It's far easier to get an article on a dead general, a lichen or a battle up to GA than anything found on high streets from Tokyo to London. There are 15 Brand pages on Wiki that have made it to FA, compared to 858 in Military History, which seems a bit unbalanced. Of course, the article rankings system seems to be applied in a variety of ways – I've ended up baffled although I have read the 1.0 classifications guidance many times. As a recent example, this article [1] was rated a start class and this one [2] a B class – the first one I created and I'm not in it for gongs, but does it count as incomplete with not enough reliable sources while the other one is a B? Libby norman (talk) 13:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Then we complicate matters even further, by accepting such sources for WP:V, but definitely not for WP:N. And then we dump our mishmash of policies all on the poor AFC reviewer (you!), wash our hands, and go complain about AFC having a backlog. I don't think we could make it any confusing or complicated if we tried. So: I'm glad that you're doing this work. Thanks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

An hypothesis

WAID: I know you to be interested in invented WP rules. You may then like to look at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language where I am defending the right of those (not I) who want to use the construct "an hypothesis" rather than "a hypothesis". There are those who would insist on the latter in WP. Myrvin (talk) 13:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I suspect that this is an WP:ENGVAR issue, but sadly I don't have time to look into it today, due to the VisualEditor re-enablement proposal. It does sound like exactly the kind of thing I like. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:56, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
The discussion there has been closed by an administrator. Wrong place; disruptive; obvious answer it seems. Myrvin (talk) 11:42, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


The current and recent restrictions on this article have been unusually severe, and we have to make that clear without going overboard. I think your latest version is very good. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

What am I doing wrong

Can I pay someone to write what is acceptable and find the links to the work I am disabled It hurts my neck I need help Kitty Terry aka Kitty Woodson Terry (talk) 14:53, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kitty Terry aka Kitty Woodson Terry,
Yes, it is possible to do this (although it might not be wise, and it is a bit complicated). You can ask for details at a page called WP:COIN.
The first step, which you might want to do even before asking for more details, is to consider what has been published about you by journalists in the past, in sources like music magazines. The goal is to have enough information about you that someone who knows nothing at all could write multiple paragraphs about your life and career solely by using information published by independent journalists. This information does not have to be available online, but the "test" for inclusion excludes all information provided by or written by you, your record labels, or anyone associated with you. If the magazine articles that mention you are mostly passing mentions, namechecks, or routine coverage (for example, brief announcements that an album was released), then you might not want to bother pursuing it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:06, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Re: Wikimania

Thanks for the thought. If this project progresses, next year I may encourage other developers to join in Wikimania. But that's next year, many things may happen before. Cheers! --Felipe (talk) 00:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I think that what you really want is a hackathon. There is usually one connected to Wikimania, but there is at least one more each year. The last one was a couple of months ago in Lyon, France. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Belated Thanks

Re: RFC: Question on correct/preferred sourcing reg. the instance of A Prize Awarded to Person X. Appreciate your comment! DBWikis (talk) 16:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Disappearance of Joanne Ratcliffe and Kirste Gordon

Hi. Would you be willing to help me with Disappearance of Joanne Ratcliffe and Kirste Gordon? I just need help fleshing out the article. I'm not the world's best editor or writer and asking a female contrib like yourself to help with an article about female subjects might be a good idea. Paul Austin (talk) 20:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I don't know anything about the subject and I don't have time to take on any new projects. You might see whether anyone at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography has some ideas for you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Bullet points on Reference Desk

Hello WAID. I am having a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Reference desk. Some editors there like using what I call blobs - bullet points at the start of their contributions, mostly on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language. I think it should be discouraged as a version of WP:SHOUT. Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines seems to agree, saying "Normally colons are used, not bullet points (although the latter are commonly used at AfD, CfD, etc.).", and makes a suggestion about editors "removing bullets from discussions ", but blob-users disagree. I haven't come across this practice before, so I was surprised by it. I also fancy I might have been threatened a bit: "Users editing the bullet points out of others' posts may be taken as a sign of unwarranted aggression ;)". Is there some arbitration that covers this sort of thing? Myrvin (talk) 17:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any previous disputes like this. People generally take a live-and-let-live approach. Creating a list is not a form of shouting at people. Some people use a bullet to signal "here's my opinion, and others may disagree". In that case, they are hoping that you will provide your own "!vote" after theirs, just like people post their views but don't usually "discuss" at an AFD.
It is useful to make the lists produce valid HTML. For the sake of people using screen readers, there should be no blank lines between any bulleted list or indented list (because using a colon to "indent" is actually MediaWiki markup for a different type of HTML list, called an association list), and you should avoid switching between them in the middle of a conversation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Ah, this isn't the use of bullets in a list. - nothing wrong with those. This is apparently using a bullet to make my comment stand out from the others.
  • Like this. It's also not a vote thing - just an ordinary contribution. I wondered at first If it was some special type of comment. But it turns out that it is used only by certain people. It was so odd to me I decided to question it. Not a good idea on the RDs. Myrvin (talk) 19:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
An example is this in Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#Cell camera verb. We chug along quit happily without blobs, until a blob-user appears. Is this editor saying that his/her view is more important than everyone else's? What would it look like if everyone did the same thing? Myrvin (talk) 19:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Another is this in Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#What is a gallon jug. Why should one contributor have a blob? Myrvin (talk) 19:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello Myrvin. It may just be me, but having been here a while, I've never interpreted a bullet point (please stop using "blob", it's a bullet point) as a way of shouting over others. Have you got any evidence that this is actually the case or are you just surmising? Given the claims on your talkpage of your experience and works, I'm surprised by your edits. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to have troubled you WAID. Please forget about it. I have surrendered, and apologised to RM. Myrvin (talk) 21:19, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree with The Rambling Man: it's not shouting, and it's not an effort to make a comment seem more important. There are some much better ways of doing that, after all. ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

RfC: On Software Notability.

There is currently a RfC on the topic of software notability (whether consensus has changed or if the essay needs updating) at Wikipedia talk:Notability (software)#RfC: On Software Notability.. As you previously discussed on the topic I thought you might be interested. :) ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 17:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Minor grammatical point

I agree with you that this edit is an improvement, but I just thought I would mention that "this" is a pronoun, not a preposition. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:48, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I think that my fingers might be operating independently from my brain. ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


I apologize if I'm pestering you too much (I'm actually reading the comments about notability at the Village Pump now). I noticed that you are one of the more active contributors to Wikipedia:Conflicts of interest (medicine) and thought you may have the time/interest to contribute to a discussion here on an article where I have a disclosed COI. CorporateM (Talk) 02:13, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

RFC notification 1 August 2015

Hi. Since you participated in an earlier discussion on the same issue on the same page, please take a look at Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists#RFC: “Common selection criteria” ambiguity. If you choose to reply to this notice, please do so on my Talk page. (Don’t worry, my IP address is static.) Thanks! — (talk) 16:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Famous web search engine listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Famous web search engine. Since you had some involvement with the Famous web search engine redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. GZWDer (talk) 08:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


Perhaps you would like to read the RfC again. Your contribs to Med are excellent, on the other hand I don't think your years-long persistent wikilawyering over each and every issue is conducive to our collaborative spirit. Regards --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it is the least bit "wikilawyering" to object to your baseless description that there is a "the recommended number of perfect, non redirect/dab articles required for the Autopatrolled flag". There is not and has never been any requirement for any "perfect" articles anywhere on Wikipedia.
I also don't think that it is "wikilawyering" to note that this has been discussed and supported four separate times already, and that PGBOLD directly says that if you personally don't object to the change, then you personally shouldn't be reverting it. Opening an RFC is fine; adding a disputed-inline tag is fine; actually reverting that which you have no objection to is bad. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

  The Socratic Barnstar
For always coming up with wise and compelling arguments. While looking through discussions, yours is usually the one I highlight and read. ‑Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:23, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Ugog. It's very kind of you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:10, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Erika Schwartz

I've removed the (paid?) contributions of sockpuppeteer TejaswaChaudhary from the article which required removing your contribution. I think most of your change was also cleaning up his text. Could you please check the article and make sure you're OK with the result. Thanks, Bazj (talk) 08:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Bazj. I am entirely satisfied with your work there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:15, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Women's health

Hi! Since you are a member of WikiProject Women's health, I would like to hear your input on a current proposal on the talk page. Thank you! Keilana (talk) 18:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Keilana, I don't actually consider myself a member, so I'll let you all sort it out among yourselves. But as a long-time member of WP:COUNCIL, let me suggest that splitting small projects is usually deadly. If you choose to split anyway, then you should consider turning the results into WP:MEDTF groups ("WikiProject Ob/Gyn" is almost the same thing as the "Reproductive health" task force anyway) ...and you should look through (lack of) activity on the existing task forces' talk pages to see why I recommend against splitting. You've only got a few people commenting regularly on your talk page, and if you split, you'll have even fewer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY is being revisited: How should Wikipedia refer to transgender individuals before and after their transition?

You are being contacted because you contributed to a recent discussion of MOS:IDENTITY that closed with the recommendation that Wikipedia's policy on transgender individuals be revisited.

Two threads have been opened at the Village Pump:Policy. The first addresses how the Manual of Style should instruct editors to refer to transgender people in articles about themselves (which name, which pronoun, etc.). The second addresses how to instruct editors to refer to transgender people when they are mentioned in passing in other articles. Your participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Image Policy

Greetings. You made this change [[3]] to the Manual of Style for Images. "Directly" is the key word here. It somewhat contradicts WP:IUP, which states, "The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article. The relevant aspect of the image should be clear and central." Since you made the change (after a discussion), how strictly do you interpret "directly?" Regards Tapered (talk) 10:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Tapered. I interpret "directly" to mean that if the subject of an article is a firearm, and that if this type of firearm was once used in a crime, and that if a memorial plaque was made about the crime, and that if plaque does not mention the firearm at all, then the article about the firearm should not contain an image of a plaque about the crime.
However, if you were talking about a plaque that actually mentioned a type of firearm, then the outcome would be different. For example, there's a historical marker for the birthplace of the Tommygun inventor, and that could be included in either the article about the firearm, the article about the inventor, or the birthplace, since both the invention and the inventor are explicitly mentioned on the plaque. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
You did your homework. Thank you. I'll retire the RFC. I disagree with that policy, but really don't care enough to pursue the matter. I think the Manual of Style and Image Use pages need to be in agreement. By its very nature, Wikipedia, like any society, is vulnerable to organized ideologues and pedantry. IMO, the language in the Manual of Style, and your interpretation are pedantic/narrow. Regards Tapered (talk) 20:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that those two pages really disagree, but I can see why you (and other reasonable editors) might come to the opposite conclusion.
The image in question is not present in three other languages of Wikipedia, in their articles about the crime: Korean (, Russian (, and Simple English ( WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Please read this: [[4]]. And let me know what you think. Tapered (talk) 04:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Please don't read. I deleted after discovering it's against policy. Tapered (talk) 05:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Gentle, gentle, gentle

When a new editor or otherwise apt-to-err soul slews his/er errors in your path. (Not me.) Cheers. Le Prof (talk) 19:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Is Poison Candy your personal article?

Why did you do such a substantial reversion, that was in substance very scholarly? Will look here for an answer before I cause trouble, but the article was, and is again, back to being a mess. Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I have reviewed in detail the edit that you did, and am reverting it. The content added may not agree with your desire to keep the article biased in a particular direction, but the information added was all sourced, and thoroughly so, and so is not only permissible, but improves the article from a scholarly perspective. I am reverting, and if you re-revert, this will go immediately to an administrative venue. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I did such a substantial reversion because it does not accurately reflect the sources. I believe that this article, like any other, "belongs to" any editor who has actually read the relevant sources and is trying to accurately represent the POV of the majority of sources' as being the mainstream POV. This means, for example, not trying to dismiss or minimize the conclusions of scholars in the field. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

5 Million: We celebrate your contribution

We couldn't have done it without you
Well, maybe. Eventually. But the encyclopedia would not be as good.

Celebrate 7&6=thirteen () 13:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Tom powers Musician

U responded to me yes I am confused I added information about Tom powers the musician that wrote the New Hampshire state song and ride and shine Was there ready as article on him? If do I of not need to write more Please let me know Joann powers Joannpowers (talk) 02:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

relief and thanks

whatamidoing, your comments on Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) are awesome. Thank you ! I dont think i have crossed paths with you elsewhere. I am so glad to read that another person thinks similarly, and speaks more eloquently than I could. you cut through the fog, I love it. now dont tell me you are part of the WP medicalproject... :-)--Wuerzele (talk) 04:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

It appears that I am bound to disappoint you: WikiProject Medicine is my favorite group of editors. I believe that we do excellent work (with occasional problems ;-) overall. I have spent years working with them, and particularly with refining and expanding both MEDRS and MEDMOS. I believe that MEDRS needs to set a clear, reasonably high standard and apply to all WP:Biomedical information on all of Wikipedia.
I also believe that MEDRS needs to be interpreted by people who are using good judgment instead of mindlessly ticking boxes on a checklist, and that it needs to help some editors resist their impulses towards overmedicalization, and that resolving some of its structural problems is becoming more urgent as our population of editors has evolved over time.
I suppose that I ought to go read through the wall o' text at MEDRS soon (I haven't looked at it for more than 24 hours now), but it's past midnight in my timezone, so it will have to wait. WhatamIdoing (talk) 09:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Village pump proposal

Hi WhatamIdoing, thanks for your support and thoughts on the VP proposal re talk pages. Would it be possible for you or one of your colleagues to make some of the people involved in ClueBot programming aware of the discussion, so we could have their input on what they think it would be realistically possible to achieve?

I've often marvelled at the sophistication of ClueBot, and was hoping that an AI talk page monitor could in time become similarly clever at identifying real problem edits, without generating too many false positives. Indeed, if a good open-source WMF tool were eventually to result, this could potentially be used by other sites wishing to adopt such a system as well. As some have proposed, pilots could be restricted to pages known to have severe problems at present. Andreas JN466 16:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Andreas, I think that it's just a matter of leaving a message for User:Cobi or User:Rich Smith, or at User talk:ClueBot Commons. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Haitian wikipedia

I may have found someone willing to be an administrator on the haitian wikipedia. I still would really like to create more content on that wikipedia but won't do it until they get someone who can block. Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 14:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Courtship disorder for deletion


A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Courtship disorder is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Courtship disorder until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — James Cantor (talk) 17:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Problem with donation box removal

I clear my cookies often, so I cannot get rid of the donation message. Might as well block it with Adblock Plus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mocker7guy (talkcontribs) 01:28, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Are you normally logged in? If so, then go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets and choose "Suppress display of fundraiser banners" (item #12 in the first section at the moment). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Reply to Problem with donation box removal

I'm not logged in all the time, so, now what — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mocker7guy (talkcontribs) 21:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

AFAIK, if you clear cookies and you don't log in, then there isn't any reliable way for the system to know that you have already seen the banner. Most of them stop around the end of the year, so you may have to wait it out. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:04, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

To You and Yours!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:48, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message
--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

Thanks for all you have done this year :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Best wishes for the holidays...

  Season's Greetings
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Adoration of the Shepherds (Poussin) is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 10:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Seasons Greetings!
I've been hearing from the elves that you've been a little worried about how Santa's list is looking for you. They say he's almost done with his second check, and so far it looks like you've hardly been naughty at all! Thanks for the work you do and the help and nice words that you have shared with me. You have brought joy into my work here.

I wish you and your family Seasons Greetings and a very Happy New Year Gandydancer (talk) 18:21, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Happy New Year, WhatamIdoing!

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

Happy New Year, WhatamIdoing!

(Unknown artist, Norway, 1916)


Just saying thank you for your thoughtful input at Talk:Equine-assisted therapy. Definite need for multiple views there and many eyes. Montanabw(talk) 22:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC) And your continued look at the actual article editing disputed language would also be useful. Montanabw(talk) 04:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Spring clean of the Policies and Guidelines page

Thanks very much for having a go at cleaning up the process part of that policy. Having the policy on looking after policies and guidelines in a nice and tidy state can't harm in helping encourage them to be done well! Dmcq (talk) 12:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad you like the results so far. I'm not planning to do anything else there (for a while); there's nothing seriously wrong, so there's no rush, and it's a good idea to let even inconsequential copyedits sit for a while until people have had plenty of time to look them over and decide which ones they like. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


Could you fix {{Goal}}? SLBedit (talk) 23:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know. Can you tell me what was wrong with it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Problem solved. SLBedit (talk) 00:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Just in case this comes up again, Mooeypoo's the best person for weird TemplateData stuff. She wrote a lot of it.   WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Hip pain

Hip pain, now no longer a red link (as per your discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 41. Ta da! (It's really just a disambiguation page, but I hope you like it anyway.) KDS4444Talk 20:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Expert attention required

Hi What. Stumbled upon Fetal intervention and slapped a couple of templates on it, one of which asks for a Medical expert. Seems like your kind of thing :-)

P.S. - Your talk page is over 100000 bytes ;-) fredgandt 19:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


Hi WhatamIdoing! Thanks for the DYK suggestion and posting the note at Wikiproject Math. I've never paid much attention to DYK, but I see there's a 7-day limit so I'm guessing that it's not likely to happen at this point. (I didn't expect this to be controversial at all, or for editors to be this interested, though I guess I should really have known enough to avoid the comparisons to Bayesianism. If you've been following the discussion you'll know there's a couple of other things as well, and it's also entirely possible I'm misunderstanding some fundamental issue - though I don't think so.) But if you happen to know any articles in medical statistics or related subjects that deserve a rework, I'd be interested to hear about them, since it's a topic I've been spending extra time on recently. :-) Sunrise (talk) 10:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The seven-day deadline is for the nomination, and it doesn't have to be perfect at that time.
I've been wondering whether NNT needs another review. It's been a few years since I saw a major effort on it. Beyond that, I'm not sure which ones are (or should be ;-) used the most. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into the local language
  The Cure Award
In 2015 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs, and we would love to collaborate further.

Thanks again :) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 03:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

How to help in Alcoholics Anonymous

First of all, I would like to thank you for your contributions to Alcoholics Anonymous. That said, I did have to remove the references to the references which are non-peer-reviewed popular press articles. The reason being Wikipedia policy, as per WP:MEDPOP.

However, your contributions are welcome. We encourage people to read peer-reviewed literature about Alcoholics Anonymous and summarize it in the article. For example, the article has had a citation for Humphreys, K., Blodgett, J. C. y Wagner, T. H. (2014) in here for a while; it is a very recent (2014) article showing how increased AA attendance results in less drinking. In fact, this paper is more recent than the non-peer-reviewed Lance Dodes book you cited, and refutes the central thesis of that book: It shows how the AA program itself (and not self-selection bias) helps alcoholics drink less.

Indeed, this paper, despite being recent, has already been cited 9 times:

However, four of the articles are behind paywalls; you may have access to these articles. The information we have from scholarly articles is in a lot of ways outdated.

One issue the article has had is that people with a biased agenda against AA have put in nothing but a combinations of peer-reviewed articles which are critical of AA, despite being out of date (Brandsma 1980 has been a really popular one to cite), popular press articles critical of AA (such as, yes, the 2015 Glaser article and the 2014 Dodes book), or even unreliable self-published books (Such as More Revealed by Ken Ragge).

Information from recent peer-reviewed articles about AA, either for or against, would do a lot to improve this article.

Thank you, again, for your contributions to Alcoholics Anonymous

Defendingaa (talk) 13:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Defendingaa. I believe that you will find that I'm thoroughly familiar with WP:MEDRS. But if you would like to enforce it to the letter, would you be so kind as to go through the article and blanking all of the pro-AA claims that are sourced only to the organization's self-published, non-peer-reviewed website? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:52, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


How many other templates "have information about how unpopular their choice is"? Why should this one be singled out? --Redrose64 (talk) 16:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

How many other templates are fairly often used to unilaterally change the citation style merely because one editor has a personal preference for it?
I think that it's helpful for its proponents to remember that most editors aren't familiar with, or actively dislike, this particular template. At worst, WP:Nobody reads the directions and the information is harmless; at best, it will encourage proponents to remember that they're in the minority and need to build consensus for the use. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Some editors do indeed dislike it; to me, your comment give the impression that you are one of those who dislikes it. I don't like {{rp}}, but I don't alter its documentation to indicate my dislike. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:39, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm not fond of sfn, but I recognize and honor both its value for certain kinds of articles and the enthusiasm that a very small minority of very good editors have for it. {{rp}} is an interesting comparison. That template's /doc page has contained a ===Warning=== section since 2008, which goes rather beyond providing a single accurate statistic about its lack of popularity. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of List of top-selling candy brands for deletion


A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of top-selling candy brands is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of top-selling candy brands until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Rathfelder (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Policy writing is hard

Must be a pyschic link [no, I don't believe in that stuff]; I had been thinking of writing essentially the same essay! Glad you got to it first; my to-do list is huge.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  20:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

It's been on my list for years. I keep saying the same things over and over, usually to people who propose "fix Y" as a solution for "problem X".
If I quit my job, I might even finish merging WP:Third-party sources and WP:Independent sources someday. ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

  Bfpage |leave a message  01:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

deleted Commons essay Applicable law (content partly by you) now in Meta userspace

You had edited, I think originally created, the Commons essay Applicable law and you commented to keep when it was nominated for deletion. It was deleted from mainspace and undeleted into Commons userspace, but a revised and somewhat expanded essay draft is now in Meta userspace, with a view to moving it into Meta mainspace, to solve the problem of being out of scope for Commons (it was also criticized for brevity, so I've added to it). Feel free to edit and discuss in Meta userspace. I have also posted a similar invitation at the nomination announcement on your Commons talk page, but you needn't reply to either one. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 05:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


Hi! It looks like you were around helping make the Ebola outbreak pages happen . . . we sure could use some help with Zika virus outbreak (2015–present), Zika fever and Zika virus, if you have any spare time, or know someone else who could help! Thanks! Chris vLS (talk) 05:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you want one Edit tab, or two? It's your choice

How to switch between editing environments
Click the [[ ]] to switch to the wikitext editor.
Click the pencil icon to switch to the visual editor.

The editing interface will be changed soon. When that happens, editors who currently see two editing tabs – "Edit" and "Edit source" – will start seeing one edit tab instead. The single edit tab has been popular at other Wikipedias. When this is deployed here, you may be offered the opportunity to choose your preferred appearance and behavior the next time you click the Edit button. You will also be able to change your settings in the Editing section of Special:Preferences.

You can choose one or two edit tabs. If you chose one edit tab, then you can switch between the two editing environments by clicking the buttons in the toolbar (shown in the screenshots). See Help:VisualEditor/User guide#Switching between the visual and wikitext editors for more information and screenshots.

There is more information about this interface change at mw:VisualEditor/Single edit tab. If you have questions, suggestions, or problems to report, then please leave a note at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback.

Whatamidoing (WMF) 19:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Wondering if you can regrade this article?

Hepatitis. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:06, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the new B-class rating. In terms of completeness and density of sources, it'd probably clear GA. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:44, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Wpegden (talk) 16:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


What is your take on the SIDS discussion? Does it seem inevitable that the community will prevent any mention of the research on ventilation, heating and fans? I am interested in working to improve the article to include more general knowledge about SIDS but when it seems like half the the medical wikipedia editors all working on this one article and are driving towards "NO" by the seats of their pants I eventually have to cut my losses here. Has that time come? Wpegden (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Hope springs eternal, or I would have given up years ago.
I haven't looked at the discussion since my last comments, and I'm not likely to get over to that page any time soon. But it might be more efficient to stop, let everyone recover from their knee-jerk problems, and come back to it in, say, six months. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
good advice. Wpegden (talk) 23:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
If you are prepared to be disturbed, witness the knee-jerk of all knee-jerks. Wpegden (talk) 20:22, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Evidence in Gamaliel arbcom case

Hi WhatamIdoing, per instructions from the arbs, I have removed your side-comment evidence as being out of scope for the case. I've copied it onto the evidence talk page where you may do with it what you will. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:33, 23 April 2016 (UTC).

Its location doesn't matter to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

High Point WHY

Why did you merge High Point into West Seattle? It makes it impossible to link it to other wikis, and it makes no sense for Arbor Heights to have its own article but for High Point not to even be listed in the neighborhood list at the bottom of West Seattle. --Haruo (talk) 14:20, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

That was more than three years ago, and I have no memory of doing that, much less a memory of why I did it.
The Esperanto page can link to the redirect, and I believe that Wikidata is capable of doing one-to-many linking now anyway, so the links can be made. As for Arbor Heights, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is probably the relevant answer. You can certainly add it to the list of neighborhoods at the bottom of West Seattle, if you think that being described at the top of the article is insufficient. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Primary research on brain structures

Thanks for your edit on Intersex. You may wish to review the source pages for that content, including Causes of transsexualism and Neuroscience and sexual orientation. Thanks! Trankuility (talk) 22:50, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Trankuility,
I know that it's exceedingly popular among transsexual people to believe that there is a biological basis for their trans status. Frankly, who wouldn't want to believe it, given the way that Western society reveres "Science" so much more than human experience? In fact, a number of non-intersexed transsexual people have joined support groups for intersex people, where they are often unwelcome, in the hope of finding common identity with the group whose difference is widely acknowledged to be purely biological and therefore untainted by stigmatized psychiatric diagnoses. And there is certainly some research that gives them hope for the claim that there is a biological component, although it's perhaps perilous to base a claim for basic civil rights on an assertion that your brain is different. (Can you imagine hateful political ads about trans people having "brain damage" or "differences in their brains, just like people with psychotic disorders"? I can. Also, research has shown clearly that greater adoption of the "scientific" idea that mental differences are caused by biology results in less acceptance and worse treatment of the affected people, so "my brain made me trans" may not be a good political strategy.)
But it's not about understanding, about biological reductionism ("I'm trans because of biology" rather than "I'm trans because I'm trans"), or even the objective merits of the claims; it's about the irrelevance of it to the subject of intersex. You don't need to know anything about the neuroscience of transsexuality to know that these are separate categories. Right now, rightly or wrongly, intersex status is determined by objective, currently measurable biological facts, irrespective of self-identification. Trans status (both transsexual and trans*) is all about self-identification, irrespective of whether there actually is any biology behind it. You can be declared intersex without your consent, but nobody can force a label of (e.g.,) pangender on you. The articles should clearly communicate that distinction, without wandering off into the weeds about whether there is a neurological component of some other condition. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:15, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi, @WhatamIdoing, I largely agree with your analysis, but I also know that the category distinctions are lost on most people. The history of that text on transsexual brain structures on the Intersex page was that it was added to the page, I deleted it, and the original user reinstated it. I therefore added the material on homosexuality. The difficulties for this article are several: there is repeated pressure to add material on transsexuality, reliable sources can be contrasted with each other, and primary sources persist elsewhere on Wikipedia that help to justify such claims. Trankuility (talk) 23:32, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
It's difficult. Wikipedia is written based on what's interesting to an editor, and some editors will be interested in drawing connections between their favorite topic and everything else. It doesn't matter what the topic is; we had someone doing something similar (only usually with better sources) for gluten sensitivities a little while ago.
Do you think these other articles would benefit from a solid round with the weed whacker first, or do they need more careful editing?
Also, I'd someday like to have an article on the brain sex hypothesis; it would presumably correspond to Feminine essence concept of transsexuality, which doubtless needs a lot of work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing, that is not a page that I was previously aware of, thanks for the link. I would personally always aim for careful editing. A brain sex hypothesis page would probably benefit from, inter alia, Delusions of Gender and similar research. Trankuility (talk) 00:42, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm glad to hear that you don't think we need to get out the WP:TNT to deal with those pages.
I don't know if you are aware, but I know you're a careful editor, and I really do appreciate you sharing your opinion on the state of these articles with me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:19, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words, they are appreciated. I'm happy to support improvements to those pages. Trankuility (talk) 05:00, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Re: Two things

Yes, yes, I'm quite aware of the characters. :) I remain concerned about what any of this restore business has to do with the Preservation policy, but I'll reply to you on WT:EP. -- Kendrick7talk 14:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


I'm currently traveling in Eastern Europe with only limited time online and much of that only on a tablet (which I despise). I'd like to defer any comments on the Policy policy (not a typo) page until after I return home on the 20th, but I'd like to say this: I admire your enthusiasm and desire for clarity and efforts at dispute resolution. Though we've!voted on different sides of some issues, I think we're not philosophically different in any substantial way and I would like to get to know you better. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. I also think that we're headed in the same direction overall.
One of the things that's important to me on policy (and similar) pages is hearing other perspectives. It's all very well for me to think, "well, in the last half-dozen disputes I saw" or "overall, on the kind of articles I usually work on", but it's critical to me to hear "well, maybe it works that way in the articles that you work on, but in the articles I work on, the situation's usually different..." So I have always appreciated your comments, and not just this month. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Incurable disease

I looked up the topic in hope of finding information on "Cancer" and "HIV/AIDS" as I believe(d) these are two most significant Incurable disease/unsolved problems in biology driving research. But the unavailability of such an overview article (in spite of the fragmented information contained in Cancer research and HIV/AIDS research) means I didn't get what I am looking for. What do you think is the best solution?

Perhaps a template along the lines of {{Incurable disease}}? Solomon7968 05:07, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fatal diseases might be instructive reading. I thought that the article could have been useful (e.g., to fiction authors who are looking for a disease to give to a character), but sourcing was a serious problem.
You probably also want to read about the mathematical definition of "cure" (described briefly in Cure), as that will certainly matter for deciding whether any given cancer is curable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the AFD link, I see there is no possibility of creation of such a template. Some time ago I created two award articles: Mortimer Spiegelman Award and Snedecor Award which are awarded respectively for contribution to public health statistics and biometry respectively. I wonder about the reason of the presence of the large number of redlinks there. Since Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine is much more more active than Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Statistics I wonder if you know of some medicine folks who will want to create articles on those two prize recipients. That may inspire some professor of Public Health (say from here, here or here who also received those prizes to join Wikipedia as a regular editor. Solomon7968 00:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I think that User:CFCF and User:Bluerasberry might have some ideas. You should probably also drop by WikiProject WP:Women in Red, to make sure that the women recipients are on their lists of missing biographies. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks: GLILD

Just to say thanks for your input into this, much appreciated as a new starter Dr John Hurst (talk) 11:36, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


Hi, WhatamIdoing. I thought this discussion about the proper use of pull-quote templates might interest you. Ping me from here if you comment over there. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 01:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of the way those quotations are presented, but I think you would get a better sense of the community's POV on this issue if you posted a (scrupulously neutral) pointer to this FAC at WT:MOS.
Also, I don't mean to sound discouraging, but the popularity of the subject with editors will be a factor in this review. It's only human to see articles about your favorite things in a somewhat more favorable light than they deserve (and vice versa). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:28, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "WhatamIdoing/Archive 14".