User talk:WhatamIdoing/Archive 7

Active discussions



You left a message on my talk page a couple weeks back regarding starting an RFC/U... I was wondering if you had any pointers on where to start to figuring out how to start such a thing, as I think I'm at my wit's end with this other user. Yobol (talk) 23:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The official directions are at WP:RFC and WP:RFC/U. I'm sorry to say that you'll need to read both pages to get the whole story, and some of the sub-pages might also be useful. It looks like you've never commented at one, so here's the basic run-down:
The absolute minimum requirements for opening an RFC/U are that you must have two users ready to sign their names to a statement, with diffs, saying that they have tried to resolve this dispute with this editor, and have failed. If it's just you, then try a noticeboard. You have 48 hours and zero minutes to get two editors to sign this statement, with diffs, or it will be deleted. (If there is any chance that it might take longer than that, then start in a sandbox.) So "Step Zero", if you will, is quietly chatting up a few people who are involved in the dispute to see if they're willing to certify it. Once you're ready to start, here's what you do:
  • Think carefully about what outcome you would like. The goal is something that the other person might agree to voluntarily, so "magically becomes a WP:COMPETENT person no longer in desperate need of WP:THERAPY" is both useless and insulting. "Stops using profanity on article talk pages", however, is measurable and something a reasonable editor might agree to. (I have no idea what the dispute involves, so these are merely random examples.)
  • You create a page named WP:Requests for comment/Username This page is generally set up in one of two formats (your choice).
  • In the designated section at the top of the page, fill in your summary of the problem. In writing this summary, you frame everything as a behavioral issue (so it's "WP:CPUSH and WP:TE", not "added lousy sources to support his contention that the moon is made of green cheese") and provide a selection of diffs and diff-supported direct quotations to illustrate the problem. Resist the temptation to write a book-length explanation of the problem, because WP:TLDR is the law of the internet. (The purpose of direct quotations is because you also can't trust everyone to click all the diffs you're supplying for them, much less to search through article and user contribution histories.) Focus very tightly on the biggest problem.
  • Once the page is "certified" (two editors signed their names, saying they have already attempted to resolve the dispute, with no success), then you notify the identified editor about its existence. Both RFC/U forms have a separate section exclusively reserved for that editor; it is his (or her) chance to tell his side of the story. Do not touch that section.
RFC/U pages have odd, spurty patterns. Sometimes, you certify one, and the next day there are a dozen comments on it; sometimes it takes a week to get any response at all. The goal there is to win friends and influence people, so editors who want to present themselves as being the rational, well-behaved persons in the dispute are well advised to be slow at adding any comments that could be (mis)construed as "arguing" with anyone, especially uninvolved respondents, but prompt at clarifying or providing additional evidence. Naturally, all threaded comments belong on the talk page.
Nominally, RFC/U pages stay open until the problem is solved and/or everyone is so bored or disgusted that they quit talking. If voluntary agreements (the preferred outcome) cannot be made, then the RFC/U might attract an admin willing to individually issue a WP:TOPICBAN or declare other sanctions, but this is rare, so the usual step is to then take that evidence on to WP:AN or WP:ARB to have involuntary sanctions imposed by the community or ArbCom—assuming nobody's yet quit in disgust and you're not totally exhausted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you so much for the explanation. Someone else had already expressed interest in an RFC/U so that shouldn't be a problem...looks like I have some reading to do, and need to find a block of time to organize all this. I guess time invested now may save me some time in the future with no progress with this dispute. Thanks again! Yobol (talk) 13:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Tree shaping

There is a proposed Topic Ban for Blackash and Slowart on Tree shaping related articles at the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents As you have had some involvement with these editors in question, you may wish to comment. Blackash have a chat 00:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


If you look at my contrib history, you'll find what my concern is. But I'd rather not post it as a public example as the particular article already has enough visibility. Still, your comment re footnote 5 may help me resolve the concern. Thank you! --S. Rich (talk) 03:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

You can send it to me in e-mail if you like, then.
I ask because I, like most experienced editors, sometimes fall into the trap of using words in their wiki-jargon sense, and assuming that everyone else does. As a result, we sometimes experience avoidable miscommunications. A concrete example usually sets everyone on the right path. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


Are you talking about the r or the p-value associated to that r? If is the r actually is a medium to high correlation. If it is the p value, it says that with the number of measures we have it is pretty easy that the result has be been obtained by chance.--Garrondo (talk) 07:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I used (WP:BLACKLISTed web calculator), which is r, not p. I must have had the concepts backwards in my mind.
I'm trying to identify some factors that predict medium-term activity (after 1–2 years) in relatively new WikiProjects. For the first three months of 2009, the number of people voting in favor of a proposed (and created) project, compared to activity, gave me a coefficient of about 0.5.
There was an important (IMO) change to the instructions on 20 May 2009, which I expect (hope) will have increased the correlation. Ultimately, I'd like to be able to tell proposers something like "If you start a project with fewer than ___ members, you have a ___ chance of the project dying before its second birthday," but I don't know if I'll be able to determine that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Just FYI (although you probably know this already) remember that r-squared is the fraction of total variability explained. Therefore, an r = 0.5 means that 25% of the total variability in the dependent variable is explained by the variability in the independent variable. At least thats what I seem to remember, although I could be suffering from dementia :-)
Best regards:
Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 00:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

In this case it seems quite an important correlation. As explained above 25% of what is occurring two years later can be explained by what happens in the first 3 months of a project... Nevertheless a suggestion: in this case you could try to include other variables in the model to make it multivariate: examples could be number of pages tagged by the project in those initial 3 months, number of different editors in the discussions in the 3 months, links from other projects to the talk page of the project, and any other you think of.--Garrondo (talk) 07:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

And OF COURSE there are tests to see if the r-squared value, i.e. the contribution to the total variability, is statistically significant or not. LOL. I'm stopping there :-) Except to say that I strongly concur with the advice of Garrondo regarding the wisdom of trying to make your model multivariate.
Best regards:
Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 15:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I suspect that there are several components to success, but I'm not sure what they are. I hope to find something that allows the initial proposer (a single individual) to gauge the likelihood of success based on their own account's characteristics.
My next goal is to see whether the proposer's number of edits (as of the day of the proposal) has any effect. Perhaps when I get the data assembled, I should turn it over to one of you for a proper analysis. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Might be of interest

Hi, hope all is well. I thought due to some of our communications in the past that you might want to keep an eye on this case to see if anything happens here of interest. I don't know if you are already aware of this case that just opened or not but since we tried to calm things down earlier, without much success though some things were accomplished I think, I am watching it to see if goes into behaviors of editors. I am telling you about this because I think your interest would fall into the same area of interest as mine is. I just thought you should be aware of this in case you weren't already. Have a good day and stay well, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, I noticed that BG is still in battle mode with WLU since he is still attacking in yet another thread. If his/her behaviors continue like this again, then I think it is time to ask an administrator for some kind of sanctions to stop the attacks already. I was close to it in the thread where we were discussing his/her website but figured it would calm down since a consensus was reached about everything being discussed. Now I see that isn't the case so I think it needs to be forcibly stopped if it continues. Do you agree or not? Since you are on the ELN board more than I am I thought it would be good to share my opinions about this with you in case the attacking continues. I hope your comments about this puts it to an end but if not than it needs to go to the next step I think. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your note. It looks like I was addressing that inappropriate attack at ELN while you were leaving this message for me. I had let it sit for a little while to reflect on how to address it, but I ultimately decided that a public rebuke was warranted. I do not want his attacks to continue. ELN is a stressful enough experience for new people (many of whom are really just trying their best to help), and spiteful messages like that will increase their stress and harm Wikipedia's reputation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Help needed

We could use your help in Talk:List_of_people_excommunicated_by_the_Roman_Catholic_Church#Nazis_excommunicated where a document is being discussed with which you may be familiar. Student7 (talk) 14:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

BLP, ethnicity, gender

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Include "ethnicity, gender," to match all other guidelines

Some say source requirements for ethnicity and gender of WP:EGRS don't apply to WP:BLP living persons, simply because the two words aren't in the policy. (Apparently, they think it should only apply to dead people.) I see that you have participated on this topic at the Village Pump.

They also are trying to remove the notability, relevance, and self-identification criteria at WT:EGRS, but that's another fight for another day, I'm simply too busy to watch two fronts at the same time.

We're on the 6th day. Traditionally, these polls go for 7; unless there's no obvious consensus, when we go for an additional 7 days.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note; I'll have to remember to !vote against your proposal when I have time to deal with it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites

Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Kumioko (talk) 01:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Please look at this page

EL Goddess -- please look at Tillamook Cheddar (dog). Do the links to the picture violate EL guidance? Thanks. --S. Rich (talk) 20:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

That is certainly an unusual approach. While it's possible that some of them are meant to function as self-published, non-independent primary sources that support the content (in which case, they ought to be formatted as proper bibliographic citations), and while one might attempt to make an argument for using {{External media}} boxes, I'd probably replace them all with a single, normal ==External link== to the main page of the website about the dog. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Wiki CA Help Request

The students in my orthopedics class seem to be using a professor provided template that doesn't exactly meet the formatting standards of Wikipedia, resulting in what you deem a "how-to" tone. I agree with this, but where I'd love your help (and anyone else willing to!) is creating a template based on the MoS and conventions within WikiMed that also include what the professor is providing to the students. With this template, we can not only ensure that students are creating articles that match the style from the beginning, but give them an introduction to the conventions of WikiMed. I appreciate all the feedback you've given, and can't wait to see what we are able to come up with. Dylanstaley (talk) 21:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dylan,
I'm happy to help. Have you considered the suggested sections at WP:MEDMOS#Medical_tests? There are other suggested patterns at WP:MEDMOS#Sections that might be useful.
Coping with how-to information is something we can always clean up later if we need to. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
So, using both my prior knowledge and the sections you provided, I've made the following template. Would you mind making any changes you feel are necessary? Dylanstaley (talk) 22:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I've had a go at User:Dylanstaley/OrthoTemplate. Whatever changes you dislike, feel free to remove. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I approve of all the changes. Just curious, though: why'd you move the history section towards the bottom? Is that a WP:MED thing? Dylanstaley (talk) 22:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes. For one thing, professionals tend to think Patient history, and for another, it's often the least important section. People primarily read medicine-related articles because they want to know about the "medicine" part, not the "history of medicine" parts.
For historical conditions, we take the opposite approach: history first, symptoms later. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for butting in. So the Hawkins-Kennedy test works by rotating the greater tuberosity, approximating it to the acromion, impinging the rotator cuff or the long head of the biceps brachii tendon between them. Should this information be included and if so where? ITasteLikePaint (talk) 05:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
An excellent question. It sounds like we need a ==Mechanism== (or similar) section. Perhaps right after ==Procedure==? What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I think it would fit best there. I added it in but am not feeling very verbose this late at night. It will probably need to be revised. ITasteLikePaint (talk) 06:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Another question, and then I need to skip off wiki for a little while: Do you mind if we clean up the occasional formatting mistake in pages that are currently in the main namespace? I'd settled on a hands-off approach for the others (the more you do yourself, the better you learn how to do it), but I'm a little worried about leaving Finkelstein's Test in its current shape. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

External links filtering tool

Hi. I remember you'd expressed some interest in a tool to filter Special:LinkSearch results by namespace (for instance, so you could see only links from articlespace, since those are the ones subject to content policy). I remember you'd tried a script I wrote, but it wasn't working for you on your machine.

Anyhow, I just wanted to let you know that I rewrote a script to do this, mostly from the ground up, using jQuery. It should be much more portable, and I think it will work on your machine. If you're interested in giving it another try, the script is at User:MastCell/el-search.js. As I'm sure you already know, if you want to use it, you can go to your vector.js file and add the line:


Once you reload and reset your browser cache, it should work. All you should have to do is browse to Special:LinkSearch, and you should see a (functional) drop-down box to filter the results by namespace. If you do end up using this tool, the please let me know if it works for you, and let me know of any problems you encounter. Hope things are going well. MastCell Talk 00:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I've wandered back to Monobook for, because of User:WhatamIdoing/Temp.js. Is it likely to work with Monobook? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Yup, it should work fine with any skin. MastCell Talk 03:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
On loading Special:LinkSearch and searching (in the usual way) for a website, I get (in this instance) 90 results on a page showing (expectedly) two search buttons (one on the left/usual place for searching for pages, one next to the LinkSearch box) and one promising new namespace pop-up menu.
On selecting "Article" and clicking the Search button, I get three grayed-out search buttons: two on the regular search box, and one on the LinkSearch box. All three say "Searching..." and show a little circular 'processing' icon. The buttons remain gray until I give up and cancel the search; it does not produce results (within, say, five minutes). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Clarification: I originally pulled up a search I'd done the other day, which had the search target in the URL. Now, when I go directly to Special:LinkSearch and type in something new, even without touching the new menu, it fails to produce results. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, shucks. It sounds like something is seriously messed up, but unfortunately it's beyond my rank-amateur skillz to figure it out. I'm sorry - I was really hoping that switching to a more robust third-party library like jQuery would fix the issues. Anyhow, thanks for trying it out again - if I can figure out why it's not behaving for you, I'll get back to you about it... MastCell Talk 19:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Today, I'm using Firefox 3.6.13 on a Mac. If you'd like, I could try it on Safari. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Sure, that couldn't hurt. I've actually tested it on Mac/Firefox and Mac/Safari (albeit an earlier version of Firefox) and it's worked for me. So I think it's less likely a straight-up browser/OS issue, and more likely an interaction with either the monobook.js or perhaps another piece of Javascript code that may be running on your client. But that's just a guess. If it behaves differently for you with Safari, please let me know. MastCell Talk 20:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I get the same behavior. Safari is version 5.0.3, very much plain vanilla; MacOS is version 10.5.8 on a somewhat elderly laptop. I've got a machine running 10.4, and I think one running 10.3; what OS are you using? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I've tried it on OS 10.5.? and 10.6.? with Firefox and Safari, with success (as well as Firefox on Linux and various Windows flavors, and Chrome on Windows). What I haven't done is try it with monobook (or other skins) - I just assumed it would work, but that may have been a mistake. Alternately, depending on what you've got in your monobook.js, it might be conflicting with other scripts. MastCell Talk 21:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I switched to Vector, and it still doesn't work in either Safari or Firefox, with the same behavior (well, in Vector I only get two grayed-out buttons, presumably because there's no "Go" button).
In both Vector and Monobook, I've tried it as the sole script; it doesn't seem to matter. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Hmm... weird. I don't have a good explanation for that. I should probably enlist the help of someone more knowledgeable than I in the art of Javascript. Thanks again for testing it. MastCell Talk 23:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Update: I think I might see the problem. I've used the HTML "submit" type to identify the "Search" button, assuming there was only one such button. In fact, the Wikipedia-wide search box also has a "submit" button, so the script is getting confused between the two. I think that accounts for the behavior you're noticing. Let me work on it and I will get back to you once I think I have it solved. Thanks again for testing it. MastCell Talk 19:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm happy to test it for you. Let me know when it's ready for the next round. (No rush.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
OK, I think that this should fix it. Would you be willing to try it again? MastCell Talk 03:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Well... we have progress, in that there's only one grayed-out button (and it's the right one), but I'm still not getting any results (in Vector, in Firefox: I can test the other configurations, but I don't expect them to behave correctly). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Hmmmm... that's really odd. I just re-tested it by logging in to my account on a Mac (Mac OS 10.6.5). I tried both Safari 5 and Firefox 3.6.15, and the script worked for me. Oh well, back to the drawing board - I'm at a loss for why it isn't working. MastCell Talk 19:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Arborsculptre et al. Subject Bans

re a proposed Topic Ban for Blackash and Slowart on Tree shaping related articles- I Have addressed your comments here and further at the ban link @ [1] where my top-line reads "Support Subject Ban, including all editors porting ongoing arguments here..." What about a group who use WP to try to effect a change to the English language? If that's not an "original" effort.... quest-ce que? Hilarleo Hey,L.E.O. 02:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

re "Topiary is not X,Y, or Z" at WP:ANI#How about full page protection- I would like to solicit the reasoning behind your opinion re topic and title, but please let's do this where it was, where it is more well-supported- not at WP:ANI which is after all a poll on another, newer issue, not a forum for the established antagonists to re-hash their positions, which it's become.Hilarleo Hey,L.E.O. 18:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
It's not actually complicated enough to waste time discussing: Topiary canonically does not involve trees. Most traditional topiary uses shrubs, and modern topiary uses metal frames stuffed with sphagnum moss and small, decorative, non-woody plants. Additionally, with topiary, the artistic emphasis is strongly on the leaves, and with both tree-shaping and bonsai, the primary artistic focus is the tree trunk. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


  Hello. You have a new message at Hydroxonium's talk page. - Hydroxonium (TCV) 16:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Blackash talk page

Hi, I've now replied to your comments on my talk page, I did ramble on a bit. But the short version is I haven't taken it personally. Blackash have a chat 11:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Reply on WP:PEND RFC

Just thought I'd drop you a friendly note that I replied to your section on the analysis that has been done so far. I should have gotten around to replying sooner. --nn123645 (talk) 03:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I hate my brain sometimes

These are things that I should have spotted on proofreading the article (several times). Thanks for fixing them. Any chance of reviewing the article for GAC? JFW | T@lk 04:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm reading now and will post comments soon.
Do you prefer BrEng or AmEng for this article? Since you've contributed more than twice as much as any other editor, it's IMO entirely up to you—feel free to switch it one way or the other—but it needs to be one or the other, and I'll need to know which one you choose before I officially review grammar. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Should probably be AmEng, given that I haven't really actively tried to use BrEng spelling. I probably have left some Britishisms in. JFW | T@lk 18:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for starting the review. Please continue. I have all the time in the world now that Lambert-Eaton myasthenic syndrome has passed rather more quickly than I'd anticipated. JFW | T@lk 12:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the nudge. I apologize for being so slow and uncommunicative this round. I'm very slowly working my way through the sources. I can't seem to find a copy of Robbins, though, and unlike some of the others (I'll get you a list of the important ones before long), a book is not something you could readily e-mail to me if necessary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Book links

I have a question - I am not sure what you mean by this statement "The extensive use of redirection URLs ( needs to be fixed." that you made about book links. Could you clarify for me - as i use books alot.Moxy (talk) 19:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

See WP:EL#Redirection_sites. is like, and shouldn't normally be used. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
oooo ok sorry to bug you - i though you meant a Googlebook long link - that allows you to go to a page like ..Moxy (talk) 19:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Those can be quite useful, particularly when they point at a particular page. I believe that you can shorten it to just this, though: Don't forget to add the ISBN WP:Magic word whenever possible. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


Were you going to leave a note about the pointer at ELN or elsewhere? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 21:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been away from my computer for a bit, and I haven't got much time now. As it was a generic, name-free request for general attention, I didn't think that notifications were warranted. I had considered at note at ELN or its talk page, but if anything, I thought that drawing attention to the request for more attention from uninvolved people might have the unfortunate effect of escalating the dispute. The goal is dispute resolution, not dispute escalation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Yup, sounds good (particularly your last sentence...) WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex
Hi, I don't know if you are interested in this change of header or not but thought you should at least know it was changed. I just noticed it while looking at the difs at AN/i. Usually it's improper to change a header someone else wrote esp. when editors have already responded to the section as you know. I'm not going to do anything about this but just wanted to let you know about the change. Take care and hopefully this will end already. --CrohnieGalTalk 17:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I saw it, and I don't mind. Even if I did, WP:TPO says that it's okay to change section headings. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I think I'm going to have to go a reread some of the basic policies and guidelines to see the changes made since my last read long ago. ;) --CrohnieGalTalk 22:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to edit

Sorry for taking so long with collecting the stats for the trial. I've been been very distracted. I'll make a start on it today. I've invited Occasi and PPdd to contribute their thoughts, since both have expressed some enthusiasm for statistical analysis. I hope this will give PPdd an opportunity to work with us on something relatively emotionally neutral when he gets unblocked, and may give him something constructive to do while waiting. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I am looking forward to seeing what we have learned. You might also be able to get Cliff User_talk:Uploadvirus to provide advice, if that seemed helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Hey folks - I'm AWFULLY swamped these days with work and fighting with my family (which is also work, believe you me), but I would certainly be happy to pitch in here and there where I can with stat work you have. Let me know (and THANKS to WhatamIDoing for the recommendation, I'm honored). WOOPS ... almost forgot my autograph ... Best regards: Cliff Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 18:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


I was wondering about your point at the policy village pump on WP:NOTHOWTO, which now is archived due to the busy nature of the page. I don't have much time to spend on Wikipedia before it was over, but I still wanted to ask you about why there should be no instructions when this is an encyclopedia. Sure, other encyclopedias (depending on the definition of encyclopedia) don't have much instructions, but they do it for a reason. We should make the reason, which is to not waste too much space, our policy, and not what to do because of the reason a policy. If I tried to take a dollar from a mouse trap and realized it wasn't a good idea, wouldn't I learn to avoid mousetraps instead of not picking up money? Policies are fundamental, so shouldn't they need to be to the point, rather than because of the point? Making it because of the point could allow for potential inefficiencies, such as in the rare cases where there is no mousetrap. (talk) 08:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's use the simplest example, which is a step-by-step recipe. Pure "how-to" material, right? So you go to a tiny article about, oh, croquembouche and you provide detailed instructions on how to make this complicated cake.
Then consider what you'd have at the end of that exercise. Would that really be an encyclopedia entry? Or would that be a cookbook entry?
An encyclopedia does not include such material. A cookbook does. When you add such material, the article stops being an encyclopedia entry. Instead, the article starts being a cookbook entry.
These might be equally desirable (depending on the reader) but they are simply not the same thing. They are as naturally different as a poetry book and a mystery novel. It's not about page length: it's about encyclopedic character.
This project—the English Wikipedia—must maintain its character as an English-language encyclopedia. It must not infringe on other projects' territory to become Wiki-everything-to-all-people. We therefore cannot include how-to material. How-to-cook material must be sent to Wikibooks' cookbook project. How-to-define material must be sent to Wikitionary. How-to-learn material must be sent to Wikiversity's textbook project. How-to-build material must be sent to Wikibooks' non-fiction section.
These are our reasons for this:
  1. Including non-encyclopedic material damages our character as an encyclopedia.
  2. Including non-encyclopedic material damages our sister projects.
Complying with NOTHOWTO is one of the ways that we avoid these two types of damage. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Video hosting service move

Your move of that article to video-hosting service to add a hyphen might have been in good faith but doing only that is more disruptive than helpful. Are you going to move File hosting service, Image hosting service, FFmpeg hosting service and move the corresponding category names as well? As you probably know, Wikipedia:Article titles and its subpages generally recommends that we use the "most commonly used" name. I recognize that using the hyphen is more rigorous, but I find that it is not the prevalent usage. If OK with you, please go to Wikipedia:Requested moves#Uncontroversial requests and request that it be moved back or leave me a message that it is OK with you to have it moved back and then I will put the request in (I need to be able to show to an admin that there is no "controversy" with you). Then please feel free to start a *discussion* and build consensus about whether adding the hyphen everywhere is justified. I am sympathetic to the notion, but your approach is not the best way to get this sort of job done.--Peterclancy (talk) 15:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The hyphen is grammatically correct, and if you want the titles of all related pages to be matchy-matchy (something not required by the naming conventions), then I could certainly move them all. However, if the sources tend to use the grammatically incorrect version, then it doesn't bother me to have it follow the sources rather than the grammar book. As far as I'm concerned, you can just move it back, without cluttering up WP:RM over it. Admin intervention is not required for simple moves over redirects.
WP:BOLD editing, when there's no reason to suspect that there is any controversy, is always the best way to get this sort of job done. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I have forgotten that it was now possible to move over a redirect. I did move it back for now. Having looked at some of the other links in the template on that page, I was wondering about your notion of how to hyphenate Social network hosting service. I guess it is a matter of one hyphen or two.--Peterclancy (talk) 16:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
My first inclination is to close my eyes and pretend I never saw it, because I believe that the technically correct approach is social(hyphen)network(en dash)hosting service, which is the stuff of nightmares for people who aren't typography geeks.
My solution might look like proposing a merge to social networking service. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost interview

Thank you!

Thanks very much for taking the time to review thrombophilia for GAC! JFW | T@lk 17:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. I always enjoy working with you, and I appreciate the effort that you put into these articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

PC Testing

There are already a number of test articles, where anyone can experiment with PC - see Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Testing. There is also a test wiki, where if you want, you can be an admin and see how to add/remove PC.  Chzz  ►  19:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure—if you're such a technically advanced person that you think to go to an entirely different website to try it out. Half a dozen "test pages" show the average editor bloody nothing about how real IPs edit real articles that really are on the editor's real watchlist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


Hi. Question you may be able to answer. There appears to be a new format with links above (e.g. different icons for internal link) when I try to edit. Any idea how I can get rid of them? I can't seem to make an internal link happen! Thanks.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 23:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you point me at an example? Internal links should be same as always. What sort of icon are you seeing? (A little padlock, by any chance?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that annoying padlock! For example, right now I see a chain as an con for internal links next to a pic of something for embedded file. Help!Jimsteele9999 (talk) 15:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Do you mean that you see these icons in the actual editing window? Then I suspect that the solution is this:
  • Go to Special:Preferences.
  • Click the 'Editing' tab.
  • Uncheck the next-to-last item, 'Enable enhanced editing toolbar'.
  • 'Save' your new preferences settings, and test them out.
I believe there was some sort of screw-up on a MediaWiki software about two weeks ago that accidentally ticked this box for a bunch of editors. They apologized nicely and reversed whatever they could, but apparently they had to leave a fraction of accounts with the wrong settings (possibly accounts that they weren't sure what the settings were supposed to have been). If that solves your problem, then you can count yourself among the victims. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

F-a-G discussion

Hi, I just want to let you know that I made a suggestion to at least get a good opinion about copyright with this site. The two responses I got give me the clue that nothing can be accomplished to find closure for any part of the problems that editor's find with this site. So I think I'm going to take a break from these discussions and just deal with any F-a-G sites I find on a one to one basis. Good luck if you continue, --CrohnieGalTalk 15:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The essay will stay on my watchlist, and if any talk-page stalkers want to keep an eye on it, that would be fine, too: it's WP:ELPEREN.
I am currently very unhappy about Kumioko's straw-man arguments. His misrepresentations of other editors' suggestions are now IMO amounting to outright falsehoods. More importantly, his inability to respond to the actual proposals, rather than his made-up exaggerations of them, is preventing resolution. I have just taken (IMO) serious steps towards redirecting him. This pattern of seriously misrepresenting his opponents' positions has got to stop. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Well from what I read, he still isn't hearing anyone. He has said that editors are trying to get this site banned in a round about way without difs or naming the editors. He keeps saying that F-a-G should remain but what policies or guidelines has he been using? I don't remember any myself that he's uses but it's been a hard long debate so I could have missed it. He also admits to stonewalling the debates to a point, well I thought this was not allowed even if it only to a point. What does this mean anyways, does it mean just enough to prevent a consensus from emerging against this site or to a point? I have to admit he has exhausted me with all of his comments which say the same thing for the most part and usually he says things that aren't true, at least I'm not seeing it. I think he needs to walk away from the discussion for awhile so editor can see if they can get a consensus but I doubt that will happen. I don't know what else to do other than walking away myself at this point. I just left a message there if you want to see it. I want to see his response to my questions which is more or less what I am saying here but in question form. It's late for me to be online so I'm going to say good night for now. I hope things look better in the morning. --CrohnieGalTalk 22:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I hope that his responses in the future will be more thoughtful and less mendacious than his previous comments. Presumably he feels threatened by the long-standing and very general absence of support for a website that he apparently values highly, and this may have prompted some of these irrational comments and false accusations. We don't need a high-speed conversation to settle this. More thought and less speed before posting would probably help the conversation—no matter which editor is considering posting a comment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


Talk:Gibraltar#RfC: Due weight & NPOV in the History section I have started an RFC to gather outside opinion related to this issue. Thought you may have an interest in commenting. Thanks. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Well thanks!

Thanks for that, glad I could provide a laugh!--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello, WhatamIdoing. You have new messages at WT:WikiProject Good articles.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Autoconformation RfC

A formal Request for Comment has now been started on this topic. Feel free to contribute; best, Ironholds (talk) 19:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello, WhatamIdoing. You have new messages at WT:WikiProject Good articles.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A few words about medical marijuana

Hi, What! I'd like to respond to your comments in this post, about the use of marijuana for medical treatment.

First, you wrote that you thought that pharmaceutical chemists "might laugh themselves silly at the idea that a variable fraction of a variable amount of a highly variable product produces 'better control of the dose' than any standardized product". You might like to ask about this at the talk page for our Medical cannabis article; one of the most frequent contributors there is an Austrian professor of pharmacology who also works in the development (for a drug company) of cannabinoids in pill form.

There probably aren't a handful of scientists in the world who know as much as he does about how cannabinoids are transported from the gut into the bloodstream, and even though he works in researching that area precisely, he'll tell you that it's a very difficult process to control well to achieve the bioavailability that's desired. His user ID is Alfie66, and he's a very pleasant chap; I'm sure he'd be happy to address this or any other question on his talk page, as well.

I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I do know that Alfie is much opposed to the proliferation of marijuana for every ailment under the sun ( as am I, btw ). But he's also said on that talk page, that vaporizing or smoking is indeed a much more efficient route of administration and that it does indeed provide better dose titration. Because the physical effects of smoked marijuana are nearly instantaneous ( versus the much slower ~45 to 60 minute onset that results from taking a pill ) patients are indeed better able to gauge how much is necessary to control their symptoms. There are also articles in highly-respected journals that say the same. As Alfie has said, and other researchers in the area have said as well, the push to capture the potential therapeutic effects of the 80+ cannabinoids present in marijuana in pill form is driven by politics, not science.

Further, if you'd ever tried to care for someone who was, before resorting to marijuana, so continually nauseous that her face was usually contorted as if she'd just tasted something really disgusting and very often said "I wish I could just die", and had yourself seen what that actually means for a patient, I think your view about medical marijuana might shift a bit. Before resorting to marijuana the woman I helped care for was so pathetically nauseous that she'd vomit up the pills she was supposed to take at least half the time, and could seldom keep even a quarter of a glass of water down. Fighting dehydration was a constant battle, and because she couldn't eat her weight dropped at one point to 68 pounds, a woman of 5'9". She was in her late 80's by the way, and she, like her whole family, had lived all their lives as fervent fundamentalist Christians, tremendously opposed to illegal drug use. That's why it took her family so long to try the drug for her when nothing else had worked.

Also, I have to tell you that "I wouldn't be surprised to hear that the physician never bothered to prescribe it" isn't a fair characterization, either. It's true that she'd been to many different doctors who didn't suggest it ( although one finally had the courage to do so, God bless her ) but a survey published in the Journal of Oncology reports that over half of physicians in that specialty have done so. I'm sure many more would, if they weren't afraid of the legal consequences or of possible contempt from fellow physicians. They're aware, as myriad studies have shown, that it's not just the single cannabinoid THC that's responsible for the therapeutic effects, but that the multiplicity of cannabinoids present in marijuana act synergisticaly to produce those effects.

I'm sorry to have written a novel here, but while I'm opposed to the proliferation of marijuana that's only ostensibly for medical use, it really disturbs me to see its legitimate medical value disparaged by careless remarks. It gave one woman who I loved dearly the ability to end her days in relative peace, rather than the pathetic suffering that she'd undergone for so long before, and I really object to suggestions that caregivers favor its legal medical use because, as you put it, "it's easy to steal a pinch". I don't mean to berate you, and I'm sorry to have done so a bit, but I have to repeat that if you'd ever been in a caregiver's shoes in such a case, you couldn't possibly make a remark like that.  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to hear from you. A few quick responses:
  • The view of the average pharmaceutical chemist very likely diverges from the views of a subject-matter specialist. The fact remains that marijuana in 'leaf' form is not, and cannot be, standardized. (Oil extractions could be, but I'm not aware of anyone doing this. IMO it would be highly desirable for a standardized oil to be available.) The patient simply does not know either the purity or the potency of any given batch.
  • My comment about physicians not bothering to prescribe was specifically about physicians not prescribing the pill form, for which there are zero legal consequences. I suspect the typical specialist would be far more likely to prescribe the 'real thing' than the pill, at least if the local area has some sort of medical-marijuana law. While the real thing is commonly preferred, the pill form usually works fairly well. Your loved one could have been spared months of problems, with zero legal liability, zero acquisition problems, and dramatically reduced cultural conflict, if someone had thought to prescribe the legal pill form instead of holding out THC as the last resort.
  • Theft is a serious problem, and please note that I specified institutional use for that issue. A family member or a dear friend might well be horrified at the thought, but audits of nursing homes, which typically employ dozens of poorly paid, poorly educated people, show that theft and coercion is a significant problem. See, e.g., The New York Times, which says:
“If the marijuana is kept at the nurses’ station, it tends to disappear,” Ms. Everhart said. “Pills in nursing homes are in what they call vacuum packs: you have to pop a pill out one at a time. They don’t do that with marijuana. It’s an amount of marijuana in a small plastic bag, so there is no way to track if someone took one or two pinches.”
Montana’s long-term care ombudsman, Kelly Moorse, said in an e-mail that in one state facility, workers took medical marijuana from a resident’s lockbox. She also said there were claims of staff members approaching a resident, seeking to “share” the patient’s marijuana.
Theft is also an issue in the home-care setting—my local newspaper reports home-invasion robberies of obviously disabled MM patients unfortunately often—but the problem is well-documented for institutional use, and in that setting might well disappear if the patients were all on a countable form. (Since it's unreasonable to assume that all seriously ill people have zero family members with addiction or mental illness, and since theft of narcotics by family members is not unheard of, I assume that some family members occasionally steal marijuana from patients, but it is not commonly reported.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
It saddens me to hear that anyone would steal drugs from a patient, regardless of the setting. Of course, theft would be much less likely if marijuana's price weren't so high because of our oh-so-successful ;-) war on drugs. Without that it would be priced like the dried seasoning herbs one buys in bulk at a grocery market. You're right, of course, that potency varies widely, but it doesn't matter much. Since the effects are so nearly immediate, patients can inhale a bit, wait a minute or two, and tell right away whether or not they're going to need more. That's especially true for pain, I understand; nausea usually takes a little longer to subside, around 5 - 15 minutes, from what I saw. But the patient quickly becomes experienced enough to know, by judging the intensity of the immediate-onset corollary effects, whether they've consumed enough to address the intended symptom. With pills they have to guess, and just hope that the amount they took last time will work this time or (much worse, imo) just always keep themselves full of the stuff to prevent onset of symptoms.
I've read a fair bit, btw, about the efficacy of pills versus inhalation. Most severely ill patients report that their symptoms are better controlled by inhalation, ( possibly because they receive not just one or two isolated cannabinoids, but the full range of 80+ ), and I really don't see any reason not to trust them about their own self-reported symptoms and experience. Re availability, my friend's mom couldn't get insurance coverage for pills. That would have been been approved only if she'd had AIDS or cancer, and she didn't have. No one really knows what the problem was ( since no autopsy was performed ) but exhaustive testing, imaging studies, etc. the best guess was that she had some intractable infection (she seemed to improve somewhat on some antibiotics) probably specific to one organ or organ system. The docs would have liked to have done exploratory surgery, but by the time that was proposed she was too weak to have been able to survive it. On a nurse's recommendation, her family put her in a care facility for three weeks with the idea that the place would be able to run more tests with her as an inpatient, and thus determine root cause of the problem. The facility sold itself on that premise, and the family went with that, even though it was hugely expensive and mostly out-of-pocket. Without access to her usual palliative, she was constantly sick again, lost 18 pounds over the three-week interval, and passed away shortly afterwards. In retrospect it was a real mistake to have tried that.
Did you know, btw, that bloodstream cannabinoid levels vary by orders of magnitude among individuals after consumption of the same amount, regardless of method of consumption? There's really no across-the-board, universally-applicable dose-to-bioavailability curve possible, much less a dose-to-therapeutic-response curve: The variation (apparently based on a person's genes) among individuals is just immense. Metabolism rates vary incredibly, as well, from one individual to the next. If you're interested in examining that further, take a look here, where I, very much the amateur, try to answer, with tolerant and patient assistance from the pharmacology prof I mentioned, the question "What will this certain dose produce in terms of bioavailability?" He basically said that was almost impossible to predict across individuals, e.g. quoting from research results, "Mean pulmonal bioavailability (%) was 28.5±23.1. There were two volunteers with a relative bioavailability of ~60%, but also one with only 3.7% and another one with even only 0.4%. This might give you an impression on the high variability".  – OhioStandard (talk) 20:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
  • People steal cigarettes and beer, and I see no reason why marijuana would not be an equally desirable target for theft if it were available under the same terms. Ditto for legal narcotics like Vicodin (and it seems more likely that MM would be regulated as a prescription-only therapeutic than as a recreational substance in the US, so this is IMO an apt comparison).
  • Self-reported symptoms are often the worst possible measure of efficacy, since they do not control for drug-seeking behavior. For example, I know people who refuse to report their pain real because levels they hate the woozy feeling they get from narcotics—and people who say that NSAIDs are worthless, because they like that same feeling. I know someone who says she "needs" an unusually high supply of estrogen to control what she has been telling her doctor are intolerable menopausal symptoms... which, after ten years, some of her friends have decided means "wrinkles". Some students apparently fake ADHD to get drugs. There's no reason to think that marijuana is magically immune from these behaviors. We have to assume that people who like getting high and find it easier to get high on leaf marijuana than the pills are naturally going to say that the pill version is 'less effective' or 'less desirable'.
  • Potency matters if you're the one paying for it: you would not want someone to have to spend $50 this week to get the same relief that they received last week by spending $25.
  • I begin to wonder if your mother's friend had ever heard of parenteral nutrition. Nausea does not interfere with nutrition delivered through an IV line.
  • If you're trying to figure out how the route of administration affects things, it's important to compare the same substance. In this instance, you'd want to compare smoked leaf marijuana against ingested leaf marijuana, not against a single molecule, and since you can't standardize it, you'd need to do these comparisons from the same batch at approximately the same time (because age and storage conditions matter). If the marijuana itself contains dramatically different levels of active molecules, then it would hardly surprising that the amount in the blood stream varies. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Response to your question

There is a very complex conversation/negotiation going on as a part of the RFC, so it would be premature for me to comment at this stage. We are trying to find a win/win solution for all concerned. Thank you for your interest.Racepacket (talk) 23:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Far from being "very complex", I think that it's pretty simple: If you agree to stop reviewing articles in these two subject areas, then I believe that the people who brought the the RFC/U will be more or less satisfied, and the RFC/U could be wrapped up completely in the next couple of days. If you absolutely refuse to do this, then I think that they need to consider alternatives that might be acceptable to you. They have no reason to even consider the existence of alternatives if you refuse to tell them that this option won't work for you—and no need to waste everyone's time and energy on alternatives if this does work for you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I have made an offer and am waiting for them to respond. It is best to take this one step at a time. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 23:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
If you refer to your 'offer' to not review articles nominated by four named individuals, then I suspect that it has been overlooked because it is physically above the proposal that you are ignoring. Do you intend for this to be a counteroffer, i.e., you reject Rschen's subject-based proposal in favor of your named-editors proposal? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello, WhatamIdoing. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Good_articles#Good_Article_Withdrawal.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

GA reviews

Hi. I have just completed my first GA, unfortunately failing it. Seeing as you appear to be quite involved in the process I was hoping you could have a quick look over my review and make sure it is up to standard. I would like to continue with reviews and it would be good to get some feedback. It is at Talk:Stade Roland Garros/GA1. Regards AIRcorn (talk) 04:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Overall, I think you did a good job. A few points for you:
  • Be careful not to exceed the actual GA criteria. For example, these points are all common advice (and generally desirable), but they're not actually required for GAs:
    • "use the Template:convert (or enter by hand) metric and imperial measurements for each measurement"
    • "Also all numbers under ten should be written out"
    • "there should be no single sentence paragraphs"
    • "All websites refs need retreival dates and similar formatting"
    • "Probably too many Primary Sources are used"
  • Be wary of changing someone's writing style. GA's "well-written" point is aimed at identifying outright grammar errors. In "correcting" other people's writing style and word choices, we often end up with very bland articles. The same thing can happen with removing "trivia": what is "trivia" to one person is the only thing the next person might find memorable and interesting in the whole article.
  • There's no set seven-day time limit. You could set a one-day limit, or a 100-day limit, or whatever you want. Reviewers have a lot of flexibility in that regard. Many of them happen to like seven days, but you could pick anything that seemed appropriate to you.
As I said above, overall you did a good job. I think the process you described will serve you well in future reviews. I hope that you continue to review nominated articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. The WP:GACN page will be very useful in the future. AIRcorn (talk) 01:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm glad that you like GACN; I'm its primary author. It was written primarily to short-circuit disputes by documenting some things that aren't entirely clear in the GA criteria themselves.
And, again, welcome to this little corner of Wikipedia. I'm glad that you've decided to try out some GA work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I have almost dipped my foot in a few times, but always found it a bit daunting. I wonder if a mentor type system would be useful to help new reviewers. Not too extreme, just something similar to what you have just done for me. BTW I talked to the nominator and have changed it to holding as he was keen to address the raised points. AIRcorn (talk) 09:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I know that something like that has been done occasionally in the past, but I'm not sure that it's an 'official' process (you know, so that someone could actually read directions on how to find a mentor). Perhaps I should look through the documentation again, and see what (if anything) is present, and how to make it easier. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Also, I'm glad that you and the nom have decided to work through the article's issues. Re-opening the review was the right choice, given the editor's interest in fixing it up. The best outcome is always that an article deserves to get listed. Good luck, WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Rotating locomotion

Hi again. As you know I have had my first slightly negative experience reviewing. It's not going to put me off, but it would be good to learn from it if you are willing to (again) provide some feedback. I have a few questions, but won't ask them now as I first hope to get your general impression without leading you in any direction. Thanks AIRcorn (talk) 00:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Aircorn,
Overall, I think you made a reasonable choice: Swbp is apparently not willing to improve the article at this time, and you are not willing to pass it in its current state, and so the review ends as not listed.
I'll start with your only significant 'mistake': You erred in declaring that the scope of the article was too broad. It's not your job to decide what the subject of the article ought to be. However, you were correct to note your confusion about how the scope was defined at the start. It's basically impossible to figure out if the article is both "broad" and "focused" when you can't figure out exactly what the subject is supposed to be.
I haven't read more than a sentence here and there in the article, so I have no opinion on your concerns about the tone (although the rhetorical questions you quoted seemed rather odd to me). As a general comment, though, I hope that you don't share the opinions of editors who think that "encyclopedic tone" means "dullest imaginable writing style".
It's not clear to me how thorough you were in verifying whether the listed sources contain the material they are alleged to contain. If you found and read every source yourself, and are confident that they support the material (and the article doesn't contain copyright violations), then you might want to "document" that on the review page. A future reviewer might want to save some time by skipping the verification on some of the sources that you checked out.
Your recommendation of GAR was entirely appropriate; GAR goes both ways. In fact, it would be pleasant for GAR to see a few more possibly-promotion-worthy articles.
Finally, although I quick-failed an article myself just the other day, it's generally considered more polite to leave it open at least for a few days, at least until you get some sort of response from the nominating editor. Some people have the time, inclination, and skills to do amazing work on an article that's being reviewed. So when it's not utterly hopeless, and especially if it's an editor who's on-wiki nearly every day, you might want to leave reviews open at least for a day or two. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response. I found this one tricky because I had significant concerns, but had trouble expressing them constructively and applying them to the good article criteria. In hindsight I should have probably left it for someone more experienced. I looked for some information regarding essay style articles (templates, MOS, policies etc) but could not find anything and also failed to find similar articles already passed GA that I could compare this to as a point of reference. I see your point about not being so quick on the trigger though, and the quick fail seems to be what upset Swbp the most. After a day or two we would have probably come to the same conclusion, but a lot more pleasantly. I did check the Dawkins reference (mainly for copyright violations as it read like one of his pieces), but did not do a thorough review of the references as by that stage I had already decided that it did not meet the criteria. I have a scientific background and probably err on the side of "present the facts", so I will keep that in mind when conducting future reviews, although in this case I still feel it went too far the other way. I agree that saying the scope of the article was too broad was a mistake, I probably could have explained my concerns there better. Thanks again for taking the time to provide feedback, you have covered everything I can think of at the moment. I will probably learn more from this than the ones that I passed. AIRcorn (talk) 02:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I think you're right: The hardest cases are often the most effective teachers. Good luck on your next one! WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your participation in the March 2011 GAN backlog elimination drive

On behalf of User:Wizardman and myself, we would like to take the time and thank you for your contributions made as part of the March 2011 Good articles backlog elimination drive. Awards and barnstars will go out shortly for those who have reviewed a certain number of articles.

During the backlog drive, in the month of March 2011,

  • 522 GA nominations were undertaken.
  • 423 GA nominations passed.
  • 72 GA nominations failed.
  • 27 GA nominations were on hold.

We started the GA backlog elimination drive with 378 GA nominations remaining, with 291 that were not reviewed at all. By 2:00, April 1, 2011, the backlog was at 171 GA nominations, with 100 that were left unreviewed.

At the start of the drive, the oldest unreviewed GA nomination was 101 days (Andrei Kirilenko (politician), at 20 November 2010, reviewed and passed 1 March 2011); at the end of the drive the oldest unreviewed GA nomination was 39 days (Gery Chico, at 24 February 2011, still yet to be reviewed as of this posting).

While we did not achieve the objective of getting the backlog of outstanding GA nominations down to below 50, we reduced the GA backlog by over half. The GA reviews also seemed to be of a higher quality and have consistently led, to say the least, to marginal improvements to those articles (although there were significant improvements to many, even on the some of the nominations that were failed).

If you would like to comment on the drive itself and maybe even make suggestions on how to improve the next one, please make a comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives/March 2011#Feedback. Another GA backlog elimination drive is being planned for later this year, tentatively for September or October 2011. Also, if you have any comments or remarks on how to improve the Good article process in general, Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles can always use some feedback at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles.

Again, on behalf of User:Wizardman and myself, thank you for making the March 2011 GA backlog elimination drive a success.

MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 21:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Independent sources & Wikipedia:Third-party sources

Hi, WAID: what would you think about merging these? -- Rrburke (talk) 11:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I've waffled on that more or less since I discovered that they both existed, and can't make up my mind. The major sticking point is that one might occasionally (perhaps "rarely") have a source that wasn't independent, but was still a third party. See Wikipedia:Party and person#Doesn.27t_.22third_party.22_mean_.22independent.22.3F for two examples. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I thought of that: I suppose you could be a third party who nevertheless has a close connection to the subject. But the distinction could be teased out as a topic in any merged essay. There's a good deal of crossover, not to say redundancy, between the two essays. What do you think? -- Rrburke (talk) 17:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
It looks like it's been discussed before. I won't object. It would be appropriate to set up a proper merge proposal and wait a week in case anyone objects. Which page would you merge "to"? I lean slightly towards merging 3PARTY into INDY, but I could go either way. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I think that's right, although I think the title scarcely matters as I expect people typically reach the pages by way of the shortcuts. WP:INDY is older, though, so I guess it has the prior claim. -- Rrburke (talk) 00:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Weston Price's own words

Your comment about a whole lot of dentists who need a good lecture on the fact that correlation does not imply causation reminded me of a point that came up on the Weston Price talk page when I produced the first lines from Price, Weston A. (1925) "Dental Infection and related Degenerative Diseases" J Am Med Assoc 1925;84(4):254-261. Griswaldo and THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE both agreed the quote showed Price did understand the difference and felt that he was not the ardent supporter that his advocates present. Prices own words of 1939 seem to hint that he dropped FIT in favor of nutrition but since stating that would be WP:OR. I want to put in the quote as is but it has been kept out as well because how readers might interpretate it.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Bruce, quotes like that can sometimes be used they can't represent proof of anything (advancing a claim); they can only be stated as 'Price said X'. It's not in our purview to say what the quotes represent, especially since Price's views may have changed over time, and it's up for secondary sources to determine the course of that change. Even then some would say we necessarily we need secondary sources pointing to those quotes directly, to determine their significance and relevance. Essentially, they're primary sources, and we can't use them except in very limited terms until other RS point to them. Ocaasi c 19:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Let's not spread this dispute to a bunch of pages.
I think we're going to have to resign ourselves to having an article that presents what the sources say, rather than the exact truth of his last view on the subject. In particular, "seem to hint" is far too subtle to worry about.
Bruce, it might amuse you to know that what I had on my mind when I wrote that was a scene at my dentist's office a couple of years ago. The dental hygienists apparently decided that everyone needs to know that flossing twice a day during pregnancy prevents heart disease and birth defects. Finding the balance between being kind and correcting errors proved somewhat challenging. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


Thanks, nice of you to comment. I'm not inclined to long arguments (as some clearly are on that subject), but it can sometimes be useful to suggest a way round. If I can help anywhere, let me know. Andrew Dalby 09:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk:The Man Who Would Be Queen

Against my better judgment, I've decided to take a crack at helping out there. This is in no way my area of expertise, but nor do I have any vested interest in it whatsoever. I honestly think that if editors there can just keep their posts concise and point to specific problems, it shouldn't be all that hard; however, my observations seem to indicate that's a problem. RL beckons me, but I figured I'd let you know that someone was going to at least try. If my presence turns out to be detrimental, just let me know and I'll head out. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

  1. Thank you: I'm deeply grateful to have support from any experienced editor in that snake pit.
  2. I'm sorry: Darlie believes that any new editor who removes the POV pushing is editing at my behest. Since I didn't actually ask you to be involved, I've assumed that you saw the public note at WP:VPM or ran across it on recent changes patrol or at DGG's talk page or some such third-hand place, but I'm sorry that Darlie has falsely accused you of being a meat puppet. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
A combination of the two, actually; I saw something on DGG's talkpage (I do NPP, so we run into each other a lot), then I saw your VPM note. I'm also involved in trying to fix longevity-related articles (I was somewhat involved in the recent longevity arbitration case), a subject I know equally little about, and I've come out of that all right. On 110C (a chatroom for those interested in supercentenarians), I was ripped a couple of times (search my username on Google and look in the cached version); it doesn't bother me. I don't mind venting; at worst it's just text, and sometimes it can help make my point for me. I'm partway through the book, and it is interesting, if a bit dense at times. We shall see how everything works out. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Looking at this as somebody who has never heard about the book: Why don't you just report him for slow motion editwarring? Yoenit (talk) 22:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I've thought about it, but I'd like to have a long-term solution. If the user is blocked now for edit warring, there's no reason to think that we won't be right back where we started shortly after the block expires. (See the block log for the user's previous account.) Perhaps it's something we should consider more fully.
If you want to know what the dispute is about, then I recommend as a starting point. It's not very long, and there's even a Wikipedian named on the second page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Do you think we'd be able to get consensus for a topic ban from that page? I've already stated at the talkpage that Darlie's tendentious editing is readily apparent, but I don't know how many friends Darlie has that would stonewall that attempt. I'm not having a hard time keeping my cool there, but this is long past the point of being productive; I think the community would be receptive to a topic ban proposal. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
A block for persistent edit warring is likely to be simpler, and is the more usual outcome for IPs.
Despite a note at User_talk:Danielklotz wishing that DarlieB (and I) would go away, I'd guess from comments at past mediation attempts that Jokestress and/or Dicklyon might object to a topic ban for Darlie, more or less on the grounds that it would be unfair to ban a relentless POV pusher on "one side" without banning an equal number of people on the "other side". Beyond that... nobody supports DarlieB's version, not even Jokestress. Jokestress may decline to revert the obvious bias, bad grammar, and half-truths, but this is largely because Jokestress shouldn't be editing the article at all; you will not find any comments from anyone that support DarlieB's efforts.
As for whether a block or a ban is the better choice: Since abandoning the registered account, DarlieB has pretty much edited only on this subject. Therefore there is almost no practical difference between a topic ban and a block of the same length. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
It's way easier to topic ban an individual than it is to indef an IP; if an indefinite topic ban were imposed on Darlie, that would be more effective since IPs are just about never indefinitely blocked. Just my thoughts, though. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
True enough, if you're hoping for a long-term or indef ban. Would you like to propose it at a suitable noticeboard? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do tomorrow; I'm not up for the drama tonight, but I'll start an ANI thread tomorrow if I haven't been beaten to it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk header

This seems to have broke the talk header. Not sure how to fix it... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems to work for me. What specifically isn't working for you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
If you look at WT:MED the image dose not appear and you have the text "Insert non-formatted text here" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
The image shows on my screen, in the upper right corner of the table cell, with a caption of "Welcome to the doctor's mess". Have you tried purging the cache?
I found the "non-formatted text" line, and removed it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Advice to editors.

On 3th April on COI you stated that editors should ignore Blackash when she makes comments on the discussion page. I find this advice rude and and not at all helpful in the light of the present situation where she has been topic banned for no difinitive reason. If an editor is called to justify their edits, aren't they obligated to reply. My take on your advice is that I can edit and dont have to explain why. This gells with Colincbn, Martin, Duff, and Griseums' behaviour where they barely answer or dont answer questions regarding their edits. Their favourite tactics are to attack the questioning editor with questions like "who are you? or change discussions or talk about an editors' behaviour. It has been noted on the talk page that these editors are hostile to editors with a different point of view. They also fill the page with rhetoric. In short is your advice in this instant really what you want other editors to listen too? Does this advice comply with Wiki policy?Sydney Bluegum (talk) 12:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sydney Bluegum (talkcontribs)

You might like to read WP:SHUN. It can be highly effective, especially when applied with intelligence and discretion.
I am sorry to hear that the environment at that article is still so dysfunctional. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you stop trying to change people's definition on the page like you're better?


And if you do , can you go and explain yourself so that I don't think you're some arrogant nin come poop? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The only reason that I removed your definition from teenage pregnancy is because your definition is actually wrong. A woman who gets pregnant the night before her 20th birthday is not considered a "teenage pregnancy". Teenage pregnancy is about teenage motherhood and the easily verifiable, uncontested date on which the pregnancy ends, not about someone's guess at the date of conception. (And it's the "guess" aspect that makes modern researchers refuse to use the date of conception.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh I'm sorry, I really thought you were trying to fight me, but you are right. Like you said: "common sense , is no more" no wonder we are so messed up. Even if technically that's how it is (she was pregnant the whole time she was nineteen, and then the day after she turns 20, it's not considered.) Thanks for being on my side. I had jumped to conclusions prematurely about you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
You're forgiven. I was surprised at the lack of common sense when I originally discovered this slightly strange definition myself, so it seems only natural to me that most people would have the same initial belief that I did. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


Hello there. In the past you have shown an interest in the rhabdomyolysis article. I have started to work on it again, with the aim of making it of sufficient quality to withstand FAC. I have replaced a lot of non-MEDRS sources with better stuff, and have expanded it with material from Bosch et al in their NEJM review. Currently I am adding the paediatric angle. I suspect there will still be a fair amount of ironing out to do before we send this for peer review or FAC, and I was hoping if you could apply your powerful searchlight to it again and poke holes in the weak bits that I can then go ahead and fill. JFW | T@lk 10:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye out for it, but an actual review may have to wait until next week or so. Feel free to ping me about this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

In-text attribution

In the conversations over WP:V you mentioned an example of the problems of unsing in-text attribution using EB1911. Over the last 48 hours I have been working on converting a simple template for a type of PD source into a more comprehensive one and then converting the instances of {{WaceBio}} into {{DCBL}}.

As a side issue I am going through the 2 dozen affected articles adding citations, as the original text carries non (it was added some years ago when the demand for citations was not as comprehensive as it is now). In doing this I have come across three basic types of copies:

The first two would be stylistically stunted, but I think that the last two would be impossible to keep in their current format unless they were completely rewritten as if using standard copyright material -- a restriction I see harming the project. -- PBS (talk) 12:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. It looks like you redirected the WaceBio template; as they basically say the same thing, that seems reasonable to me.
I think that even if "Macedonius" is word-for-word out of the DCBL, that spamming "According to DCBL" into every paragraph is a Bad Idea. A suitable inline citation should be sufficient (one that—as this template does—says "We took these sentences out of this source", not one that says "We took these facts out of this source").
As for "Fravitta" and "Euphemius": IMO the primary problem with close paraphrasing problem is copyright, not plagiarism. Plagiarism is immoral but not illegal, and what exactly 'counts' depends significantly on context. The pithy phrase for which we require in-text attribution today might be such a common aphorism a decade or a century from now that in-text attribution would be unthinkable. As a result, I think those two should basically be left alone, neither adding "According to ___" to every other sentence, nor dramatically re-writing them. There's no actual problem there, just a pretend problem invented by people whose go-to source supply is this morning's news feed.
I've been thinking about this problem in more general terms, and wonder what you think about this recent idea: We need attribution because of our GFDL and CC-BY-SA licenses—but that attribution can be in an edit summary rather than INTEXT and INLINE. Perhaps believing that "right in the readers' faces" is the only possible form of source attribution (that is, confusing WP:ATT with "the kind of attribution needed by the license") is the source of our problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

RFC at WikiProject Good Articles

Are you still willing to start the RFC that we have been discussing phrased in neutral terms? It may be more productive if an unaligned party kicks it off. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 20:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree that it would be best to have an 'unaligned party' start any RFC.
It sounds to me like Imzadi weakly opposes the RFC, but wouldn't actually object to holding it. Is that your impression?
It also sounds to me like Geometry guy is not pleased with the choice of WT:WPGA as the target location. Is there another page that would work just as well, from your perspective? Among the options you might consider are WT:COUNCIL (WikiProject advice pages are within their remit), WT:USRD/STDS (the advice page in this particular dispute), and a stand-alone RFC as a subpage of WP:RFC. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
You are correct that Geometry guy does not like the idea of the RFC and views it in terms of USRD/STDS vs. GA criteria, rather than GA criteria vis a vis any WikiProject standards. If he saw your formulation as being more of the latter, do you think he would object to WT:WPGA? Obviously, I want it to be seen by as many reviewers as possible. WT:COUNCIL seems to get very little traffic, although it would be a good idea to put a notice there. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 04:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Actually, it looks like WikiProject Council gets more traffic than WikiProject Good articles; see Wikipedia:Database reports/WikiProjects by changes. I intend to formulate the question in general terms, and also to present what I believe is the current consensus. IMO any of these pages would be adequate, and it could be announced at whichever places aren't chosen.
NB that I don't intend to start this RFC for a couple of days. It is my belief that a few days' distance from the end of the RFC/U would be helpful for everyone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Please put me down as "strongly" not "weakly" opposed. Thank you. Imzadi 1979  05:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that a few days gap is a good idea. It probably does not matter very much where it is located so long as it is widely advertised by placing a neutrally-worded notice on the other possible talk page locations. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 16:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I have started drafting the question for the RFC, but real life is going to prevent me from posting it on the schedule I'd originally envisioned. Feel free to ping me about it in a few days if it's not up by then. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Response to note.

Hello, Please forgive me if this isn't the proper method of answering your note at the vasectomy talk pages. I copied it here so you are aware that I've read it..

Your comment:

Vandalism is not the only reason to protect an article for a while. Edit warring—including "slow" edit warring, of the sort seen here—is a perfectly acceptable reason to impose full protection. Your goal needs to be resolving the dispute. That means proposing language that you can both live with, not yelling past each other on the talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
COPIED TEXT of my response:
I see. I didn't see that in WP:PP which is all I have to go on, hence, Wikipedia's policy. I've offered that someone actually show me where there is an edit-war at all. There was one event regarding the words "effect" and "affect" which I've owned up to as an error. The rest of the edits are a Constant Increasing of article content. If users cannot count on Wikipedia policy as written (in order to anticipate what might happen), then all we can do is try our best. Much Respect, Dijcks HotTub Pool 01:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Also, You may not be aware that 1.5 hours prior to your message, that I offered a WP:TRUCE to the other editor on the same talk page, which means that maybe you haven't seen all the elements of this very long dispute?
  • Yelling is typing with ALL CAPS RIGHT? I have not done that, other than to highlight a word or two, or to distinguish between certain ideas.

I don't want to lose favor with administrators, but if I can't read, trust and then act within the guidelines of the Wikipedia policies, then it makes it very difficult to know what to do. I point these things out not to be difficult, but to evidence disparity in how policy is written, and then how I (or others) perceive it, and then what admins ultimately ultimately do. Maybe the policy should be written to include these possibilities, so we can expect it when discussions get heated on the talk pages? If there is anything I've overlooked please accept my apologies? Dijcks HotTub Pool 02:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dijcks,
You are always welcome to leave a note for me here. I'd been thinking about leaving you a note anyway.
The situation at the article is described at WP:PP#Content disputes. The offer of a truce doesn't change the situation. Any style of yelling—whether in all caps (which is unusual on Wikipedia) or bold-face or <strong>text formatting or in tone—might trigger it. Having an article protected is not a type of punishment or shaming. It's a tool we use to force people to the talk page, and only the talk page.
When you're dealing with a difficult dispute, it's often helpful to limit yourself to one edit per page day, or two at the very most. It slows down the rate of fire on the talk page, which gives other people a chance to join in (and makes the other party spend more time thinking and less time reacting). When the discussion gets too long, people don't read it anyway, so there's not really any point in posting a bunch of long messages in rapid succession. Try this strategy:
  • Pick out the one issue that needs to be addressed immediately (hint: that's almost never going to be perceived insults). "Priority" means "what's done first", not "what's most important". Identify your priority, and focus on it.
  • Write the shortest and calmest possible answer to it—but off-wiki, in e-mail or a word processor. I've heard experts say that a maximum of five sentences is often best for an e-mail message, so perhaps that's something to aim for.
  • Wait at least an hour (overnight is better) before you post it. Do something else in the meantime: eat, sleep, go for a walk, edit some other article. Pick something edifying or that will improve your mood. Let your opponent wait for you to respond on your own schedule. If your planned message still seems to be a good idea, then post it. Otherwise, revise and repeat. There's nothing wrong with making your opponent cool his heels for a few hours while you sort out the best way to reply.
After that—don't even check to see if there are any responses for at least a couple of hours. Don't dedicate your day to responding on your opponent's time table. Don't reply to any comments until the next day (or at least half a day). Let it sit. If you're attacked, let other people answer it.
This process tends to calm down discussions be removing the frantic pace and replacing off-the-cuff, frustrated, scattered remarks with brief, pointful, focused comments that you've taken some time to think over. That alone would be valuable, but it also has an irrational but highly desirable side effect: other people almost always think that the calm, rational editor is the person whose view is very probably the right one, especially if the other "side" keeps insulting people.
I grant that it's not easy, but I recommend that you try it. You are likely to be pleased with the results. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I wanted to check in to let you know that I have read this last note, and that I very much appreciate the excellent advice.
I do want to come back to ask a few questions that I hope you can help with. I'd like to find ways to round-out my participation here after finishing my content contributions to vasectomy. It appears currently, that the clock will simply run out on the page protection as I've seen nothing that would suggest a willingness to find middle-ground by this other individual. I'd like to start learning what areas to spend time in, both learning and contributing so that I can in the near future take that run for RfA. Unless another area gets my attention I will likely try to find ways to be useful in the medicine/health areas. More later, thanks.. Dijcks HotTub Pool 09:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


Hey WhatamIdoing, High Flow Therapy is the name used most often in the industry for this treatment modality. If you insist "high flow therapy" can be used. However, I have read dozens of articles in the medical literature, and have not seen it called "high-flow" therapy. As noted it is called transnasal insufflation by some researchers, and heated humidified high flow therapy by others, however, the usual name in most of the medical literature and the name used by most vendors of the equipment is High Flow Therapy. Please do not change the name of the treatment on a whim, or because it may appear more grammatically correct. Strangecow

Hello, Strangecow. The house style is to use sentence case rather than Title Case for articles. The hyphenated form is grammatically correct, but if the sources do not follow the grammatical standard, then it can be WP:MOVEd to the unhyphenated form (something you can do yourself). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Rape#Definition of rape / sexual assault

It's about whether or not the articles should be merged/whether or not the Rape article should exist. You and Doc James battled this out before on the Rape talk page, but it would be good to again have your reasoning there for objecting to Doc James's most recent proposal in this regard. Flyer22 (talk) 01:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

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

Changes on OSA page

Hello -

Re: your revert of my change of the affirmative statement about cardiovascular disease being "the most serious" consequence of Obstructive Sleep Apnea: any affirmative statement such as that has the quality of opinion. I know we're splitting hairs on semantics, but saying that cardiovascular disease is more serious than motor vehicle accidents, increased risk of diabetes, or simply feeling tired every waking minute is a matter of opinion. I'm not saying that one is more important than another, but the way I reworded it (something along the lines of "one of the most serious consequences") was both honest to that point and didn't take away any of the intellectual value of the rest of the section.

Cknoepke (talk) 17:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no intention of starting an edit war over this. My primary point is that the actual sources seem to think that death from a heart attack is the most serious consequence (possibly because it is the most likely, and the least-mitigable: after all, if you have OSA and want to avoid a MVA, then you could take the bus. There's no similar alternative for heart disease). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi again,
I'm not interested in an edit war either - while I certainly agree that cardiovascular disease is "a" very serious consequence, from the perspective of a patient, excessive daytime sleepiness, risk of MVA, the experience of treatment-refractory pain or depression, or any of a host of other effects of OSA could be more personally relevant. I'm just saying that you can accurately and fairly underscore the objective importance of mitigating CVD risk without making an affirmative statement about a subjective issue.
I'm also just curious about what sources you're talking about. Campos-Rodriguez has written at various points about the danger of CVD in these patients, but also illustrated dramatically decreased risk of all-cause mortality with adherence to PAP treatment - meaning that, within this line of logic at least - those risks are indeed mitigable. Cknoepke (talk) 17:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Sure, but with successful treatment, all of the risks are mitigable, because the person doesn't experience OSA any longer (that is, doesn't have the damaging apnea events). The thing about CVD is that "get rid of OSA" is the only way to mitigate the risk; if you keep the OSA, then CVD cannot be mitigated. With MVAs, you can keep the OSA and still avoid MVAs.
I agree that presenting CVD as the most serious is a matter of opinion. However, I think it is appropriate for us to present this opinion, because it's not our opinion: it's the sources' opinion. It is not inappropriate for Wikipedia to correctly reflect the opinions of experts.
Also, we're saying that it's "the most serious" consequence, not "the most important" consequence. The distinction is IMO important, because what is important is subjective and depends not only my values, but also on my experience (e.g., any minor side effect I personally experience must be important) and on my temperament (e.g., the 'minor discomfort' that you experienced is 'excruciating pain' when applied to a person with a low tolerance for pain).
However, everyone will agree that death is a serious ("weighty; not trifling; leaving no room for play; needing great attention; critical") consequence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough - thanks for your attention to, and help with, the OSA article Cknoepke (talk) 19:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Sexual intercourse#Article is overwhelmingly dominated by human sex

Mind weighing in? It's about whether or not the Sexual intercourse article should lean mostly toward human sexual intercourse. One view is that since "sexual intercourse" mostly refers to humans and we have other articles to cover sexual activity of non-human animals (such as Animal sexual behavior), then it is fine that the article mostly leans towards humans, similar to the Anal sex and Oral sex articles. The other view is that humans should not be given so much weight, since the term "sexual intercourse" also refers to non-human animals. Flyer22 (talk) 19:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what else to state on this matter. I just cannot agree that we need yet another article on sexual intercourse/sexual activity. If you'd rather not weigh in on the matter at the Sexual intercourse talk page, then letting me know what you think of the matter here on your own talk page would be much appreciated. Flyer22 (talk) 01:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I think that I've been mostly off-wiki for most of the last day, including being away from any Internet connection for almost all of the last eight hours.
Do (for example) veterinary textbooks really talk about animals having "sexual intercourse" (a bit of a euphemism, by the way; "intercourse" means something like "transaction" or "interaction", and "sexual intercourse" was meant to be a genteel and vague substitute for more direct terms like rutting) rather than "copulating" or "mating"? That seems unlikely to me. IMO "sexual intercourse" is used exclusively to describe human copulation (or nearly exclusively: if we're comparing humans to non-humans, we might well use the 'human' term for all). When describing non-humans, we're often more direct.
I have no objection to having separate articles about human and non-human copulation, for WP:SIZE reasons if nothing else. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I've seen "sexual intercourse" used to refer to both humans and non-humans, such as with this Encyclopædia Britannica source (the first source for the initial definition of sexual intercourse). But I also understand what you mean. Flyer22 (talk) 07:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I've taken a brief look at the talk page, and I have this advice for you: Slow down.
Limit yourself to one or two replies per day. Right now, you're not giving other folks a chance to speak up. An objection gets posted, and you reply ASAP. People who agree with you are likely to say, "Long messy discussion. Flyer's saying what I'd say anyway. I don't need to be involved."
Let the people who disagree with you sit and stew for a bit. There's nothing you can say that won't be just as usefully said three, six, or even twelve hours from now. Fill your time reading everything that is linked to from WP:The Last Word if necessary. If you don't slow down, that discussion is going to get even more out of control. Give new people a chance to speak up. Stop jumping on people's comments as soon as they're posted. Really: the comments will be there tomorrow. Try ignoring them until then. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I've thought about that in plenty of discussions on Wikipedia (the "too long" bit), but it's often difficult for me not to respond when people are responding just as quickly to my statements. If I feel their counter argument has a chance of swaying people/don't want people to think they are right even for a minute, then I want to counter it as soon as I read it. I sometimes even try to make it clear that the argument is going in circles (that I don't have much more to state), so that both sides can slow down and let others weigh in. I even tried that there. Other times, the discussion gets longer fast whether I'm speaking up or not...and so I feel I might as well continue speaking up too. Thanks for the advice, though. I definitely get what you're saying on that. Flyer22 (talk) 07:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

You :-)

I liked you from Day One, and I like you more with every post. I hereby affectionately nominate you for the most INACCURATE Username on Wikipedia, as I'm convinced beyond ANY reasonable doubt that you know EXACTLY what you are doing 24/7/365.24 ... or should that be 24-7-365.24? :-O

Your #1 fan: Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 20:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC) (a/k/a Uploadvirus)

Thank you for the compliments.
My choice of username in part is to remind myself that any given minute can only be "spent" once. So—what am I doing, and is this what I want to be doing? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Deep. Me like very much :-) Me also love your work - prolific, accurate, interesting. Hey - sorry about all the raging I've been doing on the hyphenating issue. I'm not just a cancer researcher in real life, I'm a forensic and medical expert for a law firm, and specialize in hardcore trial litigation. Nothing I love better than tearing someones [bogus] arguments to shreds IF THEY DESERVE IT. The more I dug into this situation and others the more it became apparent to me that this Kwami dude is extremely disruptive, massively egotistical, and "holier than thou" - just EXACTLY the kind of weenie I like to face down WHEN HE IS WRONG.
Talk to you later, sweetie. Hope things are going great for you, and you are doing what you should be, at this EXACT moment in time. And THIS one. And THIS one too ... :-) *smooch*
Your friend:Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 13:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

WPMED versus WikiProject Medicine

I thought it would be more appropriate to respond here rather than MZM's talk page:

I removed the line of code from mine that converts WPMED to WikiProject Medicine although there are others as well that are converting to the WikiProject X format besides me. For what its worth for {{WikiProject Medicine}} there are 19,399 articles and for {{WPMED}} there are 21,766. Also the WPMED format is a redirect to WikiProject Medicine and not having the WikiProject X format means that a lot of logic in AWB and other scripts like the one I use means that logic to fix broken parameters (like - instead of = after class and other parameters), change parameters from upper case to lower case (CLASS or Class to class), add the project to the WikiProject bannershell, etc does not work.

Due to there being over 1800 projects it is unreasonable and impractical to account for every coding possibility. I had tried to do this in the past because my feeling is that you are fundamentally right about the choice being yours to make but the coding quickly became lengthy, slow, unreadable and unwieldy (its much easier to account for WikiProject X than to try and compensate for every possibility of every project. Some use the WikiProject, some use WP, some don't use either, etc).

So although I agree fundamentally that the user can choose what to put I think that from a Wikipedia as a whole comunity standpoint having a standard that is applied consistently and can be programmed against, learned and taught to others, read and interpretted consistently by others, etc is best. Without some basic limits to our right to do as we wish society would be drowned in chaos and Wikipedia is much the same way. --Kumioko (talk) 16:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The counter you used must be inaccurate, because there are only 25,000 WPMED articles total, not the 40,000 that your counts claim for just two of the (eight or ten) names.
I understand the coding problem, and I believe that all WikiProjects ought to have at least one "guessable" redirect in the standard name. But I still want you to stop telling other people that there are only three projects that object to your standardization scheme, because it's not true. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
On the counter question, the counter I used was the counter that shows up when I click the What links here link in the tool box. Next, its not my scheme, I had nothing to do with the idea to standardize, planning or debates although I agree with its outcome and have developed code to help with the standardization of the banner title and a lot of code to fix other problems as well. Lastly, my statement was for the "Actual" name of the template. In this case, regardless of how you are marketing it, the actual location is WikiProject Medicine because it was moved there early last year after a consensus was reached on the talk page to do so. WPMED is a redirect, the 3 or 4 that I mention are the projects that rejected the WikiProject naming convention and and do not have the actual banner located at the WikiProject X format. For example in the case of WPMILHIST the banner is WPMILHIST and a redirect for WikiProject Military History points to that. If the project did not want it as you indicate then I would think they would get a consensus on the talk page of the template or the project and change it to WPMED. Doing so would of course save the members of the project a few keystrokes but would cause numorous other programmatic problems (with the Scripts, AWB, WikiProject reports in the database, etc. My opinion is that althought the projects should have some control over areas of the projects and articles within them the community also has right to establish standards that the projects must follow, this is one of those. Just like the projects can't override the rule about linking dates in articles, they can't say they aren't going to allow the Persondata template or Defaultsort template in their articles or allow another project to add a banner to the talk page of an article in that projects scope (if they overlap). I do agree that the user shouldn't be required to use the full title and should be able to use WPMED. But the user should also not change it from WikiProject Medicine to the redirect WPMED just because they don't like it. There are many things in WP that I do not like, many of them, some days too many, but I don't usually just go changing them when there is consensus otherwise (and when I did I was blocked or had my AWB rights revoked). The same applies here. --Kumioko (talk) 16:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't know what is wrong with the counter you used; all I know is that it is actually impossible for the results you received from it to be correct.
If the project members actually supported the standardized name, then it would be mentioned somewhere in their extensive documentation. Instead, they consistently and exclusively direct members to use the oldest and most commonly used name. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I just looked at the edit counter here and its a Toolserver tool. Probably one of the 2 dozen scripts I have linked in my Monobook or one of the Gadgets I have checked. I dunno. Again I can only suggest that you use the name that is standard across the projects in WP. I cannot and would not force you to do that though. Although I would say that it is normally considered bad to change from the actual template to a redirect simply because of personal preferance. Especially since so many are running scripts or bots that will just change it again later. --Kumioko (talk) 17:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: Template count mystery

Okay, so I had a poke around, and the result is rather interesting.

As you say, 19,000 + 21,000 = 40000, not 25000. However, if you get the database to add them and then remove duplicate entries, it gives you 25,556 i.e. the correct answer.

Clearly, some items count on both lists and some don't. Here are five articles which count on both: Talk:AIDS, Talk:Assistive technology, Talk:Apoptosis, Talk:Antidepressant, Talk:Bipolar disorder. If you can spot something which connects the five you're doing better than me! :) - Jarry1250 [Who? Discuss.] 19:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you WhatamIdoing for asking about this and thank you Jarry1250 for looking into it. Unfortunately no clue here what the problem is. --Kumioko (talk) 19:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Hmm... All of the double-counted ones have other WikiProject banner templates, but I don't really see how that could matter. (Each article has a different combination of templates.) The only unifying feature that I've found is that all of the articles not only contain {{WPMED}}, but also transcluded the template under that name on the date that the template's name was moved (last June).
Jarry, can you give me a list of a handful that are only on one list? If they are all recently tagged pages (since last June), then the page move might be the culprit.
BTW, I have a related question at Wikipedia:Help desk#What_links_here_.28but_not_there.29. So far it's stumped two editors (one of whom removed his reply). If we can't find an answer, I might eventually ask MZMcBride to consider the question. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Sure. WikiProject Medicine but not WPMED: Talk:Addiction, Talk:Albinism, Talk:Arsenic, Talk:Bacteria, Talk:Biochemistry. WPMED but not WikiProject Medicine: Talk:Anal wink, Talk:Schistosomiasis, Talk:Polyp (medicine), Talk:Cystitis, Talk:Minimally conscious state. Regards, - Jarry1250 [Who? Discuss.] 20:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, that hypothesis is false. Here's the data:

Long name
Short name

If the page move had somehow been the culprit—if being tagged with the original name at the time of the move caused the page to be counted under both "old" and "new" names—then I would have expected 100% of the pages currently counted under the short name only to have been tagged after the page move (possibly including pages that had been de-tagged and re-tagged since then).

Perhaps someone else will have an idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I figured out what's going on... Theoretically, the transclusion count of Template:WikiProject Medicine should be 25,583. The transclusion count of Template:WPMED should be a subset of that. However, you'll find that talk pages containing WPMED that have not had any activity since the move (2 June 2010) are not reflected in the Template:WikiProject Medicine transclusion count. I'm not sure how Wikipedia stores transclusion data (I have never bothered to figure out the underworkings of MediaWiki software, nor do I have the time or desire to do so), but apparently renaming a template does not update transclusion information (unlike how changing a template's content will add all of the pages to which it is transcluded into the job queue (which is finally up to date)). If you want accurate data, you'd need to make null edits to all of the pages tagged with WPMED that have not had any edits since 2 June 2010. This would then add that page to the transclusions of Template:WikiProject Medicine, as well.
Here's my estimate of the numbers you are looking for. We know that 25,583 pages have the project banner transcluded and the number of transclusions listed for WikiProject Medicine is inaccurate at 19,395. The transclusion count of any redirect to Template:WikiProject Medicine definitely contains pages that use the redirect. This table shows all of the redirects to Template:WikiProject Medicine, and the number of transclusions of each.
Template Transclusions
CMedWikiProject 0
WP Medicine 78
WPMED 21,798
WPMedicine 4
WikiProject Emergency medical services 0
Wikiproject Medicine 7
Wikiproject Medicines 0
The sum of these is 21, these pages definitely do not use Template:WikiProject Medicine directly. Doing the subtraction, 25,583 - 21,891 = 3,692 pages that use Template:WikiProject Medicine directly. I can't tell you when these pages were tagged, but my guess is most were within the past year and possibly renamed by a bot.
So that's your answer. Unfortunately, the MediaWiki software does not properly update transclusions, so until that is fixed (if it is even known to be a bug), don't expect to get accurate data. --Scott Alter (talk) 14:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Scott. That is certainly consistent with the samples above (one of which was edited on the same day as the move, but before it happened), and I've heard before that page moves didn't instantly update on all the transcluded pages. (This seems to be considered a feature, since it makes it possible to move a heavily used template without killing the servers.)
That also tells us that there are about 6,200 talk pages tagged with WPMED that haven't been edited since June 2010, which is about a quarter of all tagged articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Writing Systems

I thought you might like to have a look at a new research journal, three issues so far, Writing System Research some very interesting content. dolfrog (talk) 20:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Susan G. Komen

Reverting my edits, which are NOT considered vandalism at all per Wiki guidelines, should not be permitted. You were essentially doing it to advocate for your POV and perhaps to avoid an edit warring block via 3Rs. I will look into receiving help from other editors in how to move forward here as your actions speak rather loudly.Beobjectiveplease (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Please see the article's talk page, where both my objections and my tagging error were explained at the time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I will assume good faith here. Please understand that the page, in its current form, is noticeably skewed in one direction. I'm just trying to help neutralize the tone and the text. To think that my edits were vandalism (how that was a tagging error, I'm not sure) -- that's just not the case. Beobjectiveplease (talk) 21:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
It is, unfortunately, a single-click, automated edit summary. I do apologize, unreservedly: the edits were indisputably not vandalism and did not deserve to be tagged as such.
I don't think that your efforts to "neutralize the tone and the text" by removing factual information—information that nobody, least of all the organization in question, disagrees with—actually have that effect, but we should talk about this at the article's talk page, so that everyone who is interested in the article can share their views. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Popping in to say....

Hi! I've been out of action for the past five days or so. It's been a real hard week for me so I hope your week has been wonderful. :) Take care of yourself, maybe I'll drop you an email, or you can me, this has nothing at all to do with this project. --CrohnieGalTalk 19:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I've had a pretty good week, and I'm glad to hear that you're doing a bit better. In the category of things that have nothing to do with Wikipedia, I've got a bag full of vegetables that want to be washed and sent to the 'fridge. I suppose I could put off the inevitable by wondering whether Commons has enough images of strawberries... WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, don't know about that. ;) I guess you could take a look or just put another image in just in case. Glad to hear all is well. It's good to hear when someone is having a good week. Take care of yourself, talk soon, --CrohnieGalTalk 20:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Alas, the strawberries didn't survive long enough to be photographed. ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


Hi. Sorry for not working on WP:ITE as I promised. I'm having self-discipline problems.

I'm trying to edit the disambiguation page Fatigue which includes an article you created several years ago, Fatigue (safety). I'd like to move it from the disambiguation section to the "See also" section of the dab page and am discussing the matter at Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#Fatigue. Would you like to contribute to the discussion? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if you noticed

but Jokestress removed a part of your comment here. (Dreadstar also removed a number of posts from, and I archived an entire section focused on you.) Tijfo098 (talk) 20:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

That link seems to be an edit by Dreadstar. If you think Jokestress has improperly removed one of my comments, you may restore it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry for adding to the confusion. Too many posts have been deleted there... Here's the actual diff where a part of your post was deleted. [2]. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Does that look like a personal attack to you? I certainly didn't intend it as anything other than the plain facts. Jokestress directly says "They were not sexually explicit captions" in the preceding comment, so considering the actual content of the most obviously sexually explicit caption seemed relevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Aerodynamic Mudflap Article for Review

So much appreciate and value any efforts you've made, or seems might be prepared to make to fascilitate this article. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Aerodynamic Mudflap‎

Avgjoejohn316 (talk) 05:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

If you want that article created, you need to make it sound like an encyclopedia article. Right now, it sounds like an advertisement, with phrases like "As a result of decades of work" and "rose to the challenge" and "a means of going green".
Think back to the encyclopedias you used as a child in school. Did they sound like that? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm hearing you ... OK will do and will revert back .. Avgjoejohn316 (talk) 21:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC) Appreciate the recomendations you made and have adjusted posted for your review. Many thanks. Avgjoejohn316 (talk) 05:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

You made some progress, and I have cleaned up most of the rest of it for you.
You might like to explain (in simple terms) how the louver improves visibility, if that's sourceable. I assume that it directs the spray down to the ground, rather than up to the windshield of the vehicle traveling behind the truck, but this is far from my field of expertise. Also, in reducing drag, does it improve fuel efficiency, or is there some other advantage? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello WhatamIdoing. Appreciate all you've done and are doing. Couldn't say it better. Correct on both accounts. As for the spray reduction, you assumed right, the diffusers disperse the spray down vs the sides ... Particularly helpful for either approaching or following traffic trying to overtake ( pass ) or if a driver is overtaken by a transport during inclement weather. Better fuel efficiency because of less overal drag the occurs through two principles. Less drag force occurs on the tire side of the flap because air is able to pass through the slats/vents and less parasitic drag occurs on the rear of the flap because the vents break the air into min vortex's instead of one large swirl. [[]] UTC SimCenter: National Center for Computational Engineering . Will stand by, Again, many thanks. Avgjoejohn316 (talk) 00:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


Hi, you seem busy here, per usual. Wondering if you can tell me why my edit toolbar vanishes. Should I just put the preferences at default? I did make sure the enhanced option was not checked. Thanks!Jimsteele9999 (talk) 12:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... Mine's still present. It takes a bit to load, though. Have you tried clearing the cache in your browser? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
It takes a bit to load... and it seems to take longer now. After a few seconds, I get the new "{{ cite }}" button, and then after a few more seconds, I finally get the rest of the edit toolbar. Did your problem clear up? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't suppose that you're running IE? There are complaints (e.g., here) about the latest security patch being broken. WhatamIdoing (talk) 13:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, I am running IE. And I think the new verison (9?) stinks. That being said, the elusive edit toolbar still comes and goes, despite my changes to preferences, clearing cache, etc. Thanks, though, for your help. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 17:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
The technically minded folks seem to think that a patch will be released in a few days, which I think means a week in normal-people time. WP:VPT ("Village Pump (technical)") seems to be the place to find out about these things. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the update. Jim Steele likes to let the technically proficient people wrangle with patches and problems. They seem to have--on average--a less than healthy daily does of sunlight and interaction with the human species and are thus predisposed to such ventures. He reaps the benefits if and when they come to him. Moreover, he sometimes likes referring to himself in the third person, but only after a rather juicy AfD discussion.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 22:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


Hello, WhatamIdoing. You have new messages at Template talk:Notability.
Message added 22:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I don't know if you like talkback templates or not, but I figured better safe than sorry :) — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talkcontribs) 22:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

2nd — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talkcontribs) 00:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

"Differentiated Carcinoma"

Hi WaId:

Regarding the section entitled "Differentiated carcinoma" recently tacked on at the end of the Carcinoma article - I saw where you removed the spam link. I think I also removed the same link a week or so ago, but it seems to keep "recurring" ... quite ironic, given the subject :-)

In any case, IMO that whole section is pretty bad, and I've wondered what to do about it for maybe a week. In fact, I posted Doc James about it several days ago, but he's been busy I guess. I sort of hate to just can the whole section, given the fact that someone has worked pretty hard on it, but some of the material is just flat incorrect. IMO, most of that section should be scrapped with the rest "cleaned up and integrated" supra.

How do you suggest I handle something like that? I don't have much "seniority" here, and don't want to hurt anyone's feelings ...

Very best regards: Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 00:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

It's been in the back of my mind, too. Obviously, somebody (that probably means the two of us) should boldly improve it—keeping as much as appropriate, and fixing the stuff that's wrong, and so forth. I think it'd be a good idea to have a decent section, since patients are likely to look at their lab reports and search for keywords on Wikipedia. "Well-differentiated" and "poorly differentiated" are concepts we ought to describe.
Can you give me your sort of gut response to the whole article? I've been trying to decide how to fit this in, and if we really need major work everywhere, then that would be useful to know from the beginning. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
OK, tell you what - I will toy with it some this afternoon while the boss is in trial :-) I think the article itself is EXTREMELY important, given that nearly all cancers are carcinomas, and that the topic of differentiation is also important. I like the subject, as well. Lastly, I've written a not-insignificant amount of whats there, but I tried to revise it without disturbing the (not very ideal) "structure" that was in place. That procedure usually doesn't work well (for me).
Heck, I will just take a crack at a major revision, and if you don't like anything I do, just can it or fix it. You, in particular, will never upset me, no matter what you do. I only get flustered if its someone who doesn't know what they are doing. Gotta go - TTYL :-)

Best regards always:Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 17:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

As usual, I'm running behind on my time predictions. I did, however, do a "re-organization" of what was there, but this article remains HIGHLY bloated and in need of some serious "pruning". I'll stay on it for the next few days and will post you when the "final draft" is complete so you can do an official "review" :-)
Best regards:Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 12:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps it's the "first rule of editing Wikipedia": Everything takes at least twice as long as you think it will.
It's a bit of a busy day for me, but I'll try to take a look today—tomorrow at the latest. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
No way, ma'am - you just stand back. I insist - I got this one :-)
Your friend:Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 01:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I left a note on the talk page, but the other issue on my mind is the use of the first person ("we" and "our" and such language). That's not generally done on Wikipedia except in advanced math articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:Philip Baird Shearer

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Philip Baird Shearer (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Philip Baird Shearer. -- Parrot of Doom 07:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

re: Please don't stick your reply in the middle of someone else's comment

1. The style of breaking up a complicated query by responding to individual points is commonly encountered in forums, talk pages, email exchanges etc. If this is somehow contrary to WP style or policy please provide a citation.

2. My comments were indented so the distinction in authorship was clear.

3. The style of my response was itself a response to the tone of the original post. When you reorganized it you were changing my emphasis. Dankarl (talk) 13:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I am sure that you intended for the authorship to be clear, but in actual practice, I found myself quite confused. If I hadn't been, I wouldn't have changed it.
WP:TPG does not authorize inter-leaved comments in such situations. See:

Interruptions: In some cases, it is okay to interrupt a long contribution, either with a short comment (as a reply to a minor point) or with a heading (if the contribution introduces a new topic or subtopic; in that case, one might add :<small>Heading added for REASON by ~~~~</small> below the heading to make the nature of the change clearer). When introducing an interruptive break, please add {{subst:interrupted}} before the interruption. One may also manually ensure that attribution is preserved by copy-pasting the original signature to just before the interruption.

The original message did not qualify as "a long contribution", and you did not follow the recommended procedure for cleanly identifying who the original author was (i.e., by adding the other person's signature to each of the resulting disconnected paragraphs). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Okay, point takenDankarl (talk) 17:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: With this edit, I thee...

Well, you need to find the old template to put the shortcuts somewhere else then. I know there's another way, but I don't remember the template. That ugly-ass top banner template puts way too much whitespace at the top and is totally redundant and unnecessary, not to mention horribly ugly,. . . WTF? (talk) 15:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

It looks like you have found {{Shortcuts}}.
I am concerned about how upset you seem to be over this. Project page design ranks about a "two" on my personal scale of (un)importance, but I know things that seem trivial to others are important to me. I'd rather have all of you doing useful stuff in the mainspace than fighting over what color the page is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to make DYOH a policy

I saw the proposal to make DYOH a policy, and formulated my response before reading the other responses. I am happy to see others making some of the same points, specifically, that making it policy implies enforcement, TheFarix and lack of connection to the main goal WhatamIdoing. In retrospect, I should have read the other points first and chimed in with support for each of you.--SPhilbrickT 19:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be a case of great minds thinking alike—and ours as well. ;-)
I see no harm in having several people make very similar comments, and sometimes I think we get more helpful, less biased responses when people form their opinions first, and then see what the rest of the herd is thinking. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


No, I was thinking of NOR, not N... While it is possible to write an article without citing any sources, and still pass NOR ... the material in it has to have originated in some source, somewhere (whether you cited it or not). The entire point of NOR is that we don't write from our personal knowledge. so... we do have to have a reasonable expectation that the material is verifiable. Blueboar (talk) 20:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course: Any and all material that is not verifiable to some published source clearly violates NOR. But a NOR violation doesn't actually result in deleting an article; we keep (and clean up) articles that contain NOR violations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello, WhatamIdoing. You have new messages at Racepacket's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WikiProject Wikipedia reliability invitation

Hi, Would you like to add your name to and join Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia reliability? I am trying to get people to join that project to start a process where we talk about, look at, measure and improve content reliability. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 08:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Did you list this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals? That's the usual thing to do for proposed/new WikiProjects. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Record Chart template removal consideration

I am contacting directly you because you have edited Wikipedia talk:Record charts more than once in the last two weeks. The following templates are at issue at The Beatles:

See Talk:The_Beatles#Template_removal.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's do the rhabdo

Hello there. In recognition of your previous contributions to rhabdomyolysis, I thought I should let you know that I have now nominated the article for FAC (here). Sage comments, as ever, much appreciated. JFW | T@lk 20:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your involvement in the FAC. Would you be prepared to provide comments of your own? JFW | T@lk 07:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
"Prepared" is exactly what I'm not: Every time I sit down to read it straight through, I get distracted by something else. (Do feel free to keep pinging me; I don't mind in the least.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind support vote, and for the comments (which I have now addressed). Hope you don't mind that I've changed the formatting of your comments on the FAC page. JFW | T@lk 02:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I have no objection to the formatting changes, and am glad that the comments were helpful. I hope that more people will take the time to comment one way or the other.
BTW, on the MEDMOS discussion, I'm not sure how 'applying a surgical sieve' actually affects the contents. I wonder if an example might be helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I think the concern is that "my" grouping of the causes amounts to WP:NOR. In a "surgical sieve" approach, we'd be grouping all the causes strictly according to the type of etiology. That means that we'd be dispensing with the current grouping ("physical, medications, genetic, other non-physical") and just grouping by type of cause (medicines and poisions becoming subtypes of "intoxication", for instance). I don't think there is a perfect solution. JFW | T@lk 17:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


I would agree with you on shortcuts pointing to a specific section; there is good reason to keep those that I had not thought about. However, when shortcuts are used more generally in lieu of full words (WP:V instead of Wikipedia:Verifiability, for example) on policy pages, it tends to confuse new editors unfamiliar with the shortcuts (Wikipedia:Shortcut#Readability). Neutralitytalk 06:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you about the whole-page shortcuts. It's technically discouraged (with advice that was probably written solely with the main namespace in mind), but I think that we might do well to "IAR" that advice in the project namespace for things like WP:V: the spelled-out version is more comprehensible to inexperienced people, and it takes them to exactly the same place (unlike the sub-section shortcuts). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for being so welcoming!

I hope this is the appropriate spot to respond, but I just wanted to thank you for your note mentioning my (rather meager) contributions and inviting me to become more involved. Indeed, as my contributions list likely reveals, I used to be fairly active with respect to medical subjects. Alas, especially for medicine-related articles, there are some individuals who seem unable to tolerate the contributions of others. Frankly, I grew tired of having my edits 'undone'. I recognize that you'll probably interpret what I've just said as evidence of my incompetence and/or paranoia (I would probably assume the same) but hope you'll read on for a few more sentences. In any case, the 'straw that broke' my Wiki-contributing back, was after I spent hours, many hours, honing a particular contribution. In particular, at the insistence of the "topic owner", I spent a lot of time digging up supporting references using his criteria for what constitutes an acceptable reference. Notwithstanding my efforts, he "undid" me yet again. I have not had the stomach to be much involved since.

I do apologize for corrupting your talk page with this, but it has been weighing on me for some time now, and this seemed to be an opportunity to get it off my chest (and, perhaps, there are others lurking out there who have had similar experiences). Best wishes, Gaussgauss (talk) 19:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. I know that medicine-related articles can be difficult. They attract people from all skill levels and all points of view. It is not unusual to see, within a short period of time, one person trying to push complete quackery and another trying to push the strictest evidence-based standards in the same article.
We try to set high standards for sourcing to resolve some of that (I'm sure you would never want to use a lousy source, but we do see people using mere blog posts or personal experiences to make the most extraordinary claims), but sometimes our goal of "the best" proves to be the enemy of "the good enough".
I encourage you to keep at it, whenever you have the time and inclination. If you need help with a dispute, you can always ask for a third opinion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


The section was summarily removed, and I wasn't watching the page. How did you come across it? Rd232 talk 17:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I saw the addition to WP:CORP's See also section, and wanted to see what it said. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

re: wp:article titles

I think the problem is pmanderson. Sure, I would think that, but If you check his block log:


It's enormous.

I was getting quite angry, because I couldn't understand why his arguments didn't make any sense, but he just clearly never backs down.

He really is edit warring the policy isn't he? Blueboar isn't good either, but neither of them are getting consensus (by which I mean, we all agree and then make changes), rather than just ganging up on the policy, like blueboar and pmanderson is.

It's a policy, you're supposed to agree. But I think if stick together and make a good faith effort to enforce that all changes have to be agreed then it will be OK. At the moment blueboar and pmanderson are kinda running wild.

We can't let blueboar and particularly pmanderson or anyone else (me either) make any changes without getting agreement, that clearly doesn't work.

Yes? Can you assume I'm making this offer in good faith? If we get (say) Cuchullain on board we can enforce it, because we would have the majority.

Otherwise it's just going to spiral out of control, pmanderson won't back down on anything, and blueboar will tend to back him up. I'm proposing the opposite of edit warring, we go with consensus, and any changes made by pmanderson (or anyone else) gets undone by one of us, and moved to the talk page, where we discuss it, and if it's consensus, only then do we action it.

What do you say?Rememberway (talk) 08:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Rememberway, if you're going to bring up pmanderson's block log it's only fair that we look at your past account's blocks and topic bans as well. I strongly suggest you keep editor behaviour out of this conflict. --NeilN talk to me 14:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, if you think my record is bad, he's been blocked more times in the last year than I've been blocked in 5. His blocks are consistently longer (and one time he was blocked for a whole month- that takes some doing), and they're much closer together. None of that should matter per se, except that it shows that we need to especially enforce consensus; it's nearly always a bad thing when two people work together to push their edits through in the face of significant criticism from multiple people and that's what blueboar and pmanderson have been doing. I've seen this before in other articles.Rememberway (talk) 16:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Following the spirit of the policies is the sovereign cure for this kind of thing. I'm not calling for any underhand stuff, just bread and butter, follow the damn policies.Rememberway (talk) 16:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that we have been able to achieve a consensus to make the changes you proposed. I would not be surprised to hear that PMA feels about you exactly what you feel about him: that your arguments don't make any sense and that you never give up.
I am also not convinced that the changes will actually be helpful to our typical editor. That's the thing about advice pages (policies and guidelines both): The need to be useful trumps the desire to have them technically correct. It's a bit like a diet: Atkins isn't the best weight-loss diet, but if you tell people to go on Atkins, then—after they "cheat" a bit—they'll actually end up on one of the best diets. If you tell them from the beginning that they should follow a moderately low-carb diet, then they won't restrict their diets enough to make a difference. We sometimes need to slightly under- or over-emphasize things in our advice pages to get the right outcome. A typical choice is to under-emphasize things people are already getting right, e.g., that nouns are better than non-nouns as article titles. That helps the reader of the policy focus on the things that they usually get wrong.
As to your offer, I automatically assumed that it was made in good faith, and I expect you to prove the good-faith nature of the offer by steadfastly refusing to make any changes to the page, no matter how provoked, unless and until you are directly invited to do so by some other editor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
No, I've simply asked you for a principled undertaking to back up any revert by any editor when there's no consensus for the change on the talk page, and you clearly haven't given it. -Rememberway (talk) 01:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Lack of a 'documented' consensus, by itself, is not an adequate reason to remove changes. (Active opposition to the changes sometimes is.) I would never want to remove changes (e.g., to some other, uncontested part of the policy) that I personally thought were improvements solely because they hadn't be discussed in advance. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
true, but if somebody has reverted, they're saying that they disagree with the change. That makes it defacto not consensus (unless it's already been discussed). If you agree with it, you can put it on the talk page and add a note saying you agree with the change which starts the discussion in a positive light. If it turns out that even one other person agrees with it as well as you, then it will soon go back on the page. -Rememberway (talk) 02:27, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Doing this sort of thing essentially completely stops edit warring, because we sort out where everyone is quickly. -Rememberway (talk) 02:27, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Not always. I have actually seen people revert apparently good changes and then explain that they personally support the changes, but since there wasn't "consensus", by which they apparently mean "written permission obtained in advance", that some mythical policy required the reversions. It's nonsense, but it does happen.
Yes but you don't do that, you only revert if somebody else has reverted it, and it's been remade without general agreement. So if I make a change, pmanderson makes a revert, I remake the change, then you always revert at that point; even if you agree with it, and copy it to the talk page, where you note that both you and me agree. -Rememberway (talk) 03:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I fully agree that if you make no changes, then PMA will not be able to edit war with you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
You can agree to whatever you like, but I'm not under any topic bans, and I do not agree to any topic bans, and I intend to ensure that this continues. -Rememberway (talk) 03:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

About the BOK Center GA Review

The GA reviewer for the BOK Center GA nomination, the user Arsenikk, actually deals with Norway-related subjects and that is why he made suggestions such as perfectly formatted citations and unit conversions. Now, you, the user WhatamIdoing, have pointed out on the review page that:

"You will not find dead links mentioned, much less prohibited, in the actual criteria (in fact, they are never prohibited, because WP:DEADREF basically requires that you keep most dead links for two years). Similarly, citations do not have to be perfectly formatted, and unit conversions are not required."

I knew that a different reviewer should have came along to inspect the article. Not trying to be against Arsenikk or anything. Jim856796 (talk) 15:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

To be fair to Arsenikk, DEADREF was substantially re-written in March. Wikipedia has some 500 guidelines, and it's impossible for anyone to keep up with all of the changes to them. I'm actually hoping to go through most of the open GA reviews before long and leave a note about the updates, just so people know. (Of course, you are still allowed to improve the sources in an article, say, by replacing a now dead-linked source with an equally good or better active source.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

IMHO, You Deserve This Seven-Fold :-)

  All-Around Amazing Barnstar
To WhatamIDoing, for "General Amazingness"

In quickly scanning your page for your most recent 893 contributions, I noted with some puzzlement that, while you sure get "sucker-punched" often enough, you DON'T seem to get proper notice for the "mass good" you do, and are thus NOWHERE NEAR fully appreciated around here. See you around.

Warmest regards: Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 15:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Cliff.
Say, you seem to know a bit about the cellular end of cancer. What do you think about an article at Tumor microenvironment? My interest was piqued when I read something (in the course of writing Breast cancer awareness) about the need for immunological assistance to establish a tumor. Is enough known to make it worth writing, or is it all still speculative (in which case, a short section in Cancer pathogenesis–argh, that's redlinked, too! Maybe Carcinogenesis?—is probably preferable)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for having enough faith in me to ask the question. Its an EXCELLENT one. Certainly it is unquestioned that there is a complex interaction between tumors and their microenvironment. Off the top of my head, and with respect to MY specialty (lung cancer variants), I know that in the variant of large cell carcinoma called "lymphoepithelioma-like carcinoma" (LELC), the histological picture reflects significant interaction between tumor cells and the T-cells in the immediate microenvironment ... both at the periphery of the tumor and within the intratumoral stroma. Pretty sure there are also a number of (small) studies that suggest the magnitude of the T-cell response is directly proportional to survival/prognosis, although the case numbers are small, and therefore the statistics less reliable/valid. I'm also certain it is unquestioned that tumor/microenvironment interactions are highly significant with regard to direction and degree of differentiation in at least some of the more "primitive" sarcomas, such as fibrosarcoma and the soft tissue sarcoma variants folks used to lump-classify together as "malignant fibrous histiocytoma". I think is reasonably well settled that the microenvironment exerts influence with respect to both mesenchymal-epithelial transition (and arguably vice-versa), which would be relevant to carcinosarcomas, sarcomatoid carcinomas, and others.
In any case, I definitely think an article on "tumor microenvironment" would be a good thing. If you start it and ping me and let me know, I would surely be glad to kick in and help :-)
All the best from your #1 Wikifan:
Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 23:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't think I'm up for starting such an article any time soon. I haven't identified any sources yet, and that's the best way to start one. (If you can recommend anything, please let me know.) If we decide to do this, it might be fun to put it through WP:DYK. I suspect that an article on a medical topic would have more general appeal than the pop culture pieces that sometimes dominate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Dancehall Queen (song)

I have a question about this article I reviewed for GA. My initial question for the editor was "in the lead, did the song peak at number fifty-six? In the Reception section, it says it debuted at number fifty-six, which is quite confusing". The editor response was "In the Reception section, it is noted in the same sentence that it only spent one week on the chart. Its debut was its peak." However, the lead states something different than the Reception section. What should I do next? Thanks, AJona1992 (talk) 20:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The first thing we do is remember that we have plenty of time to figure this out.
So if I've got the facts straight, then music charts are weekly events, and this song appeared on just one one chart for just one week, at position #56.
The lead says it "charted at number fifty-six on the Sverigetopplistan chart and was listed there for only one week", and the body of the article says it "debuted at number fifty-six on the Sverigetopplistan chart on the issue dated 14 May 2010, and spent only one week on the chart". It doesn't appear to use the word "peaked" for this claim.
Although they are slightly different, it's not clear to me that these are actually contradictory. Personally, I'm not sure that I'd use the word "debut" for something that was listed only once, but I don't think that it's actually wrong; it might just be a difference in writing style.
Have you read all (or most) of the sources, to make sure that the citations support the paragraphs they're listed in? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm gonna do that now. How about stating it "peaked"? AJona1992 (talk) 22:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
The only concern that I have about "peaked" is that it kind of implies that this was the highest of multiple chart positions, rather than the only one. I think that either would be okay. Another option would re-write the sentences along these lines: "The song appeared on the Sverigetopplistan chart at number fifty-six for one week." That avoids the problem.
I'll think about it some more, and let you know if I change my mind or have any other useful thoughts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree, I'm going to check the sources and ask the editor to join our conversation so we can come to consensus about this issue. AJona1992 (talk) 23:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Chemotherapy page...

The reason I struck the text in the chemotherapy page... The sentence I struck was worded thusly: "By contrast, chemotherapy is essentially useless in other cancers, including prostate cancer, melanoma of the skin, multiple myeloma, bladder cancer, kidney cancer, and pancreatic cancer: people who receive chemotherapy for these conditions are just as likely to die within five years as people who do not."

It is my scholarly opinion that this statement leans too much toward a definitive absolutism in saying it is "essentially useless." This cannot be proven by simply adding the citation of one New Zealander medical journal paper. A statement this strong must be backed up by more scholarly articles for and against. To me, it seems like the original author, by using only one reference for such an alarming statement, needs to do more research on the topic, and/or re-word the sentence so that it is not so absolutist.

Leave it if you want, but in my opinion, it is not a scholarly statement to make, which maybe is the essential weakness of Wikipedia in general. It is never accepted as a scholarly reference to quote any Wikipedia article inside of any academic circle; colleges, universities, etc. Wikipedia, while having some professional base, is not a Peer Reveiwed textual reference. There are many (howbeit gifted) yet amatuerish authors who do not have a grasp of true academic relativity. It can be at times a community of folks making educated guesses, which is incredibly NOT scholarly, and not fit for academic scientific truth. Thus, will never be accapted as anything beyond a general "ballpark" amount of knowledge, lending zero credibility of reference to any scholarly journal in academia. In fact, a college paper will get severely marked down, if Wikipedia is found in the bibliographic/reference section. Unless perhaps it was a paper written about Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geargeek01 (talkcontribs) 18:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I'd be appalled if anyone trusted Wikipedia implicitly; I consider it little better than TV news.
That said, it is not difficult at all to find high-quality sources that say chemotherapy does not prolong survival in certain cancers. The section in question is about efficacy of chemotherapy, which varies enormously—from clearly life-saving to acknowledged uselessness. This is known; this is therefore what we say (although not, in this instance, in anything like brilliant prose).
BTW, you might like to keep an eye on what we call "the doctors' mess" (anyone welcome, not just physicians). It's a group of editors who are interested in cleaning up medicine-related articles. As you've no doubt noticed, they need some work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments about MF

Hi WhatAmIDoing? !

Given the comments of the editor on whose page you made disparaging remarks about MF, and given WP policy to avoid disparaging remarks about other editors (particularly nonconstructive ones), would you please remove your remark, by substituting something like "[comment removed by User:WhatamIdoing?]"?

I can understand frustration and venting privately, but the policy is not to retaliate even when others are uncivil to you. In this case, MF did not address you, yet you are inflaming a conflict, that the other editor wants to end.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

MF directly told me to "extract your head from your arse and stop trying to waste GA reviewer's time with this nonsense". ("This nonsense", by the way, was quoting the relevant section from the FAQ at the top of the project page, which failed to support MF's personal opinion.) In what sense is it possible for MF to directly insult me and yet "not address" me? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
MF never wrote anything on Tryptofish's talk page---where you seem to endorse retaliatory incivility even after Tryptofish had asked that I (and others) do some useful editing. You are quoting from another page, where MF expressed justified irritation with unjustified wording (after you quoted policy to MF, who has performed scores of GA reviews, and was describing the reality of GA review practice). You were entitled to respond at the original page.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
If editors responded to every act of incivility by MF, we might get little else done. This is my point: John expressed concerns that MF's tender sensibilities would be terribly offended by a mild joke. I don't believe that MF has any tender sensibilities, as evidenced by MF's appalling track record of insulting other people. I wasn't the only person that MF insulted that day. I could have assumed that John thinks this kind of insult is a-okay (so long as it comes from MF), but I thought it might be more appropriate to assume that John wouldn't be so concerned if he know how rude MF was being that day, and in multiple conversations, including one with Tryptofish, not merely once or twice in the past.
I do not endorse retaliatory incivility; I favor civility, and I wish that MF did, too. But I also don't endorse John's unaccountable defense of one of Wikipedia's most insulting editors, especially if there's a chance that John didn't know how rude MF is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Observing kindness likes John's warms my heart.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 02:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm glad for that. What does observing persistent and severe rudeness like MF's do to your heart? WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Obsessive attacks on MF, particularly those cowardly left where he does does not see them, trouble me.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
But his attacks on other people are just fine with you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
MF has been helpful, intelligent, courteous, and often humorous in my dealings with him, even when I have made mistakes.
MF has never made a personal attack in any discussion in which I have been participating, so your question is irrelevant.
Please see how 28bytes's was treated immediately after he apologized to MF. (28bytes apologized on several pages, in fact, while you have not yet apologized anywhere, for repeatedly jumping into others' discussions and inflaming things.)
I agree that his tone with you was unhelpful, but you were wasting his and other editors' time by quoting familiar policy instead of addressing the issue at hand. You also seem not to have acknowledged that you were also misbehaving, in a off-topic and (especially unwarrantedly) patronizing tone to MF, who has written far more GAs and GA reviews than you. Such behavior is associated with trolling, and I am glad that it seems to have been rare for you.
 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
"The question at hand" was whether or not the nominator of an article had special responsibilities in the review. MF said that the nom did, even though the FAQ (which is not a policy) directly says that they don't. I'm not sure correcting his error could possibly be construed as "wasting his and other editors' time". I can easily see how it might be inconvenient for him to have this long-standing agreement pointed out, since he hoped to convince people to agree with him, but I don't see how it was "wasting his and other editors' time". I see nothing to apologize for in my comments. I see much for him to apologize for, in his rude response on that page, as well as many others—because it's not rare for him. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I have to say that I find the presence this thread, about which I was not informed, rather astonishing. What is this, some kind of secret court? Malleus Fatuorum 21:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
    • I won't speculate on why Kiefer didn't inform you of his decision to start this discussion, but I can tell you that no policy required him to do so. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
      • What about your beloved WP:CIVILITY? You're discussing and disparaging another editor without the common decency to inform that editor. Do you really need a policy to tell you that's not right? Malleus Fatuorum 21:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
        • I didn't know about it either (found out after Malleus commented at my talk and I looked to see where else he commented), but I don't mind that I didn't know. At this point, I'd really rather be left out of the whole business. I've worked with WhatamIdoing a lot of times before and always found it to be very rewarding, and I assumed that his comment on my talk was meant to be supportive of me. Otherwise, this isn't my issue. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
        • No, I do not consider it necessary or civil to inform an editor every single time his name or action is mentioned. In fact, a message that would amount to little more than, "Guess what! Your rudeness was used as a clear-cut example of indisputably bad behavior in a discussion today!" seems to me more like an attack than a act of politeness. In many cases, such messages would be harmful to the community, e.g., warning a persistent sockpuppet that he's been spotted before CU has time to check things out. As for Wikipedia's civility policy, which you cite, it doesn't even mention the possibility of informing editors about discussions of their behavior, much less require such messages. It does, have a lot to say against the sort of rudeness that you direct at editors who fail to agree with you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry about wasting time on this editor, after first asking him to remove a gratuitous attack, which should have been the end of it. If I imagined that anybody would care about his opinion, then I would have informed you. Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, I would honestly recommend archiving this section, because I have found it impossible to reason with these two editors. --Rschen7754 01:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Which two editors? Why will you people never learn? Malleus Fatuorum 01:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
@Rschen, you are too modest. You find it impossible to reason. Period.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks but no thanks

I appreciate your 'advice' but it really didn't contribute anything. Please only reply when you know the issue at hand and have something worth of importance. I will not be doing any further interaction or respond to you. DeadSend4 (talk) 21:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion, even if that opinion is that other volunteer editors should instantly do whatever you want or to be publicly denigrated for failing to do your bidding. However, as a practical matter, it would not be realistic to expect any reasonably mature adult to respect that attitude or to like anyone who displays it. In fact, it would be realistic for people to get so irritated with you that they oppose practically anything you do or suggest, because it was proposed by someone they've decided is an irredeemable jerk.
If that sounds like what you're normally dealing with, you might benefit from reflecting on what it means for Wikipedia to be a collaborative environment. People here must have and use good social skills. You will not be a successful participant in the community if you can't do that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
K! DeadSend4 (talk) 03:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. I am done for today but I did try to respond to the comments on my talk page accurately. If I made an error please feel free to make the correction. Thanks again, I'm off to bed for awhile, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "WhatamIdoing/Archive 7".