User talk:WhatamIdoing

Please add notes to the end of this page. I'll probably reply here unless you suggest another page for a reply. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk)

Happy New Year

I thought that I would take the time to wish you and your loved ones a Happy New Year. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Deprecated template

Since you undid my replacement of the deprecated Template:MedportalSA with the advised replacement Template:WPMED I have for the time being removed that template from the talk page of Evolution of sexual reproduction alltogether. As soon as you work out the issue and find a non-deprecated template that you would like to use, go ahead. Debresser (talk) 13:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't really care how that article is tagged, or even if it is tagged by the portal. I have very little interest in the portal. I only insist that the article, which is not within the scope of WPMED, not be forced into WPMED's list. If someone at the portal wants to get rid of a template for their own convenience, then s/he will have to do it in a way that doesn't conflict with the primary purpose of their preferred replacement template. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. My involvement in this is also sidewise: I try to keep Category:Pages using deprecated templates empty. Debresser (talk) 21:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

"such as the United Kingdom"

Since edit summaries are so poor at communicating complex rationales, I've opened a discussion on the talk page of WP:IUP. Perhaps you would like to comment there? Apologies if I wasn't responding to the point you were making, I'm a bit lost on this one (and obviously missing some of the history too). Thanks, - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 19:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

question

Hello. Thanks for your input regarding my changes regarding the special education page. I hope I wasn't too bold in my changes. Both inclusion and mainstreaming still need work, but I'm adding sources and information as I go along. I'm wondering how I go about changing the resource room page from "stub" class to something better. I understand this shouldn't be done unilaterally. As you can see I've been polishing it. the wikiproject education seems as active as a bridge game in a senior citizen home. Any and all input would be appreciated. Jim Steele (talk) 01:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Short of edit warring, I'm not sure that "too bold" exists in these under-developed and under-watched education articles.

The usual standards for article assessment are here. (Some projects have their own standards, but not WP:EDU.) Any editor can make quality assessments from Stub through B-class. If you want a simpler rule of thumb, try this for non-list articles:

• Less than about ten sentences: Always a stub.
• More than ten sentences, plus both at least one decent source and at least one section heading for content (==References== and similar appendices don't count): C-class.
• Too long for a stub, but no refs and/or no sections: Start-class.

Note that the rule of thumb I describe for C-class really is the absolute minimum, and many editors follow a rather higher standard, so if there's even the smallest doubt in your mind, choose the lower rating. Another, slightly squishier, way of looking at this is:

• If the article is tiny, it's a stub.
• If it's embarrassingly incomplete, it's start.
• If it's just enough to give someone a basic idea, it's C-class.
• If it's all the way to useful, it's B-class.

Hope this helps, WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It helps. A lot. Thanks again. Jim Steele (talk) 03:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Attention

I have answered to your concerns at the attention talk page: I might have copied too much from the original Sholberg and Mateer text, but what that book you found does is much worse: it has copied full paragraphs and structure from at least 3 different articles. Maybe something could be done about it. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 22:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; I saw your message at Talk:Attention#Copyvio.3F and will reply. Let's keep the conversation there (and let's keep it solution-focused: anyone can make a mistake, and, besides, it's all my husband's fault anyway. ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

RfC

Thanks for the heads up. I was answering a Discussion point on a Talk Page today which some time. I will address the RfC issues in the next two days, as there is quite a lot there. Many thanks.

Asgardian (talk) 03:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

From my perspective, there's no rush and no deadline: Participation is voluntary -- and I'm not in charge anyway. I just wanted to make sure that if you didn't respond in the end, that it was a deliberate choice, and not the accidental result of a busy holiday schedule or some other factor.

I hope that the discussion helps resolve the dispute. Good luck, WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

External linksearch, namespace-restricted

Hi - I remember we'd talked in the past about the utility of being able to restrict an external-link search to a specific namespace (e.g. to get all the links to fda.gov from articlespace only, without all the talkspace and projectspace links). I've come up with a hack that adds an option to Special:LinkSearch allowing you to limit search results to specific namespaces. It's still got a few minor kinks, but it works OK for me so far.

Anyhow, if you want to give it a shot, you can go to User:MastCell/monobook.js and append its entire contents to User:WhatamIdoing/monobook.js. If you don't like the results, you can just revert your monobook.js to the previous version. I'd be curious to get some feedback on whether you find it useful (and whether it works for you). If you're not really up for cutting and pasting a huge amount of text into your monobook.js file, I'll probably spin it off into a separate file that could just be imported with importScript at some point. Anyhow, just thought you might be interested. MastCell ^Talk 23:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm interested, although I haven't acted on it. Are you willing to share this with a wider audience? User:Hu12 might be interested, as might anyone at WP:WPSPAM or WP:EL. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed your response. Yes, I'd be happy for anyone who wants it to use it. I think 2over0 (talk · contribs) has already started using it. You should be able to simply add the line importScript('User:MastCell/el-namespace.js'); to your monobook.js, refresh your browser cache, and it will work. (Probably easier than cut-and-pasting the whole thing). There are a few minor kinks - I think the only significant one is that the wikilinks don't quite work on the secure server. It's an easy fix, but I haven't gotten around to it yet. MastCell ^Talk 01:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi MastCell,

The script won't play with me. I pasted the importScript line into my monobook, and reloaded. I get (yay!) a pop-up list of namespaces, but the 'Search' button is grayed out, and I can't get any search results.

(In case it might matter, I'm running Mozilla Firefox 3.5.7). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, that's odd... I tested it with Firefox 3.5.3 on a Mac (running Mac OS 10.4, but that shouldn't really matter). I wonder if it's conflicting with one of the other scripts in your monobook.js. I made one small change - if you don't mind, try refreshing your cache again (shift + "reload" button in Firefox) and try it one more time. If it's still grayed out at the start, let me know and I'll go back to the drawing board. The button is supposed to gray out after you click it - momentarily - and then re-enable once the query has completed, but it sounds like it was grayed out right off the bat for you. MastCell ^Talk 21:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I've switched computers for the moment, so I'm on 3.5.3. At least in this version (and/or with your change), the button isn't grayed out until after I click on it. I haven't managed to get any results yet, and I've switched to a test case that I know is in the mainspace. Is it perhaps exceedingly slow? I've only been letting it run for about two minutes before giving up and reloading the page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Nah, shouldn't take more than a second or two (it's basically as fast as a page load for me). Since it happened on 2 different computers (including one configuration that seems to work for me), I bet it's an issue where my script is conflicting with another one that you're running. That is, the problem is more likely specific to your account/monobook than to your computer. Let me think about it... MastCell ^Talk 00:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

My department

Hey WAID. I am attempting to get my entire department to start contributing to Wikipedia along with all the students / residents who pass through. Need to get a few things in order however. These are the first 20 pages we will be looking at working on User:Jmh649/Sandbox9. Most deal with signs or symptoms and the approach to them from an emergency medicine perspective. I have proposed added some guidance on formatting for this type of page and would appreciate some input. [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's talk at MEDMOS. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks

I thought your revision concerning books read on the internet was a most elegant solution to what I saw as an obvious absurdity. Now if you could only apply that clarity throughout the other ambiguities and contradictions I keep running into.... Nah, too much to hope for, lol.

Georgejdorner (talk) 04:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Improvements to pages like that often require tiny baby steps taken over very long periods (years, even). In the end, I hope that clarity will be achieved. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Neutropenia

An article that you have been involved in editing, Neutropenia , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Spiral5800 (talk) 13:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

if

If this persists .. please consider a blacklist request. It has been reported before for other links, they have quite a bit of stuff. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that problem is quite a bit bigger than I expected. Thanks for being so thorough. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

New sections / categories

Several of us editors have been working on two new sections within the list of cutaneous conditions. The sections are next to each other, with the first being the palmoplantar keratodermas, followed by pregnancy-related conditions. Would you mind looking over these new sections, before we go through the effort of categorizing them, and give us any feedback you may have on the talk page? Regardless, thank you for all your help in the past. ---kilbad (talk) 00:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

MH 34 RFC/U

Hi WAID,

I was wondering how you noticed the RFC/U on Michael H 34. I contemplated adding notification to a couple pages (you, Jack-A-Roe and 2over0) but don't want to bombard people. Right now it's languishing, and it would be nice to have a few more comments if people feel comfortable.

Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It's on my watchlist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming you mean the overall RFC page? 'K, thanks! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I mean that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Michael H 34 is on my watchlist. So are WP:RFC and WP:RFC/U and other related pages, but they seem less relevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Did you add it, or have you auto-watchlisted all subpages for RFC/U? I'm mostly curious 'cause I don't know if you can do something like that. And if you've got a lot of experience with the RFC/U, I was thinking of pointing some people who have dealt with Michael H 34 before to the page (Jack-A-Roe, 2over0 and yourself were the three I know interacted with him on parental alienation syndrome and a couple other pages back in the summer). I would think it's a WP:CANVASS issue, but acceptable. In the past I have also made a point of alerting people who may be on the "other" side, or inviting the other editor to do so. In this case, I can't think of any. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I manually added it, but I suppose that you could bookmark (not watchlist) Special:RecentChangesLinked/Template:RFCUlist to get a similar effect.

I think that a brief, factual note (e.g., "I have helped file an RfC/U") might be acceptable under CANVAS. A single note to a relevant WikiProject might be more efficient, but I'm not sure which project(s) would be appropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts as well, thanks. Since it's about an editor with a very narrow focus within any wikiproject, the only way you have of getting any input into their behaviour is by inviting those with contact to comment. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Message for you

Hello,itis immunize.There is a message for you at the talk page of treatment of non hodgkin's lymphoma.Immunize (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Fever

Hey WAID this is not what the ref behind what I wrote said. Hyperpyrexia is any very high temp. Fever is a change in set point. Hyperthermia is a temp above the set point. The three terms are different.

From Uptodate Hyperthermia — Although the vast majority of patients with elevated body temperature have fever, there are a few instances in which an elevated temperature represents hyperthermia. These include heat stroke syndromes, certain metabolic diseases, and the effects of pharmacologic agents that interfere with thermoregulation. In contradistinction to fever, the setting of the thermoregulatory center during hyperthermia remains unchanged at normothermic levels, while body temperature increases in an uncontrolled fashion and overrides the ability to lose heat. Exogenous heat exposure and endogenous heat production are two mechanisms by which hyperthermia can result in dangerously high internal temperatures. (See "Severe hyperthermia in adults: Heat stroke and malignant hyperthermia".)

The source I was using might be wrong... Let me look into it more tonight. Cheers.

Hyperpyrexia — Hyperpyrexia is the term for an extraordinarily high fever (>41.5 ºC), which can be observed in patients with severe infections but most commonly occurs in patients with central nervous system (CNS) hemorrhages. Although antipyretics reduce the body temperature in hyperpyrexic fever, cooling blankets and cool water sponging are recommended to accelerate peripheral heat losses. However, peripheral cooling with cooling blankets can be counterproductive in the absence of antipyretics since cold receptors in the skin trigger reactive vasoconstriction, thus reducing heat loss mechanisms.

--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Much of what we had was not based on any references at all. Just trying to add some refs. Thanks for looking it over. Will be working on it further over the next few days. Started a template Template:HumanTemperature Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This is what the ref says "Hyperpyrexia, or extremely high fever, may also be due to sepsis, but as the temperature rises, the differential diagnosis widens and includes less common conditions such as neuroleptic malignant syndrome and heatstroke" PMID 11476402 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The confusion doesn't surprise me; I remember it being difficult to sort out the sources the last time I looked into it, and some sources (including nearly all patient-grade sources) are shamefully lazy with their word choice. I remember seeing one textbook that listed the same condition as "fever" in the text and as "non-fever/hyperthermia" in a table on the same page.

But even accurate sources are complicated. For example, the ref you quote immediately above defines hyperpyrexia as an extremely high fever (which is true) -- and then names heatstroke as a possible differential diagnosis.

We could look at this somewhat imperfectly expressed source and conclude that heatstroke is a fever (except that you and I both know that heatstroke is never a true fever, by definition). Alternatively, we could conclude (correctly, and doubtlessly what the author meant to say) that heatstroke should be considered as a differential diagnosis. That is, that heatstroke is not hyperpyrexia, heatstroke is truly different from hyperpyrexia, but that the medical sign (severely elevated body temperature) that we initially attributed to a true fever might be caused by other, non-fever medical conditions (such as heatstroke). WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Also: if you look carefully at the first sources above, you'll see that they don't support a claim that hyperpyrexia is "any" very high body temperature, but support the claim that hyperpyrexia must be a true fever.

'Hyperthermia' at Uptodate doesn't mention hyperpyrexia, and the other defines hyperpyrexia as "the term for an extraordinarily high fever" -- not "any extraordinarily high temperature", but "an extraordinarily high caused-by-an-elevated-setpoint-temperature-true-fever". WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

(undent)

1. Have come across a fascinating reference that refers to fever as "controlled hyperthermia". Than calls what we define as hyperthermia as "uncontrolled hyperthermia".Axelrod YK, Diringer MN (2008). "Temperature management in acute neurologic disorders". Neurol Clin. 26 (2): 585–603, xi. doi:10.1016/j.ncl.2008.02.005. PMID 18514828. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
2. From further reading it appears to be any elevated temp "Hyperpyrexia by definition is core temperature of 106◦F/41◦C [6]. The basic mechanism is a disparity between conservation and dissipation of body heat. Inadequate heat dissipation is often the cause. The various syndromes of hyperthermia are heat stroke, drug induced hyperthermia, neuroleptic malignant syndrome, malignant hyperthermia and endocrinopathy [6]." From this 2005 paper Recurrent familial cerebellar syndrome

associated with pyrexia. Ref 6 refers to Harrisons. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay have read harrison's and have concluded you are right. It is due to a change in set point. Will add a ref to confirm this. Thanks again for the review.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you've found a really solid source.

What do you think about mentioning the loose/incorrect use of the term in the section? I'm not sure I could produce a source that directly says "some authors are sloppy" (although examples aren't hard to find, as you've discovered), but some readers might appreciate a brief alert about the confusion -- perhaps "Strictly speaking, hyperpyrexia is a severe fever..." or "Occasionally, an author will use this term loosely to refer to severe hyperthermia rather than a severe fever."

I could go either way, so whatever you choose is fine with me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

vandals

The battle continues. There is a frequent vandal who has been editing special education. Jim Steele (talk) 18:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Two events in two months at one article isn't usually what Wikipedia considers "frequent", but if you're seeing problems with other articles, we might want to consider leaving a note at WP:AIV or WP:RFPP. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

WT:MED

I posted a new comment about condition variants/subtypes at the main medicine talk page, and would appreciate your thoughts if you have a moment? Regardless, thanks for your help in the past. ---kilbad (talk) 22:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I replied back on the med talk page. ---kilbad (talk) 04:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:MED will always be on my watchlist, so notifications aren't actually necessary (and I wouldn't want you to go to needless work) -- but, having said that, if I'm being slow in responding, a friendly ping is always welcome, because sometimes I mean to comment "after just one more thing," and then get distracted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

wp:citation needed

hello,

just curious, why the "essay" flag at wp:citation needed? I'm concerned that it might undermine the level of trust that people will place in what is otherwise uncontroversial advice; and that it adds another feature to an otherwise clean page. That being said, I've seen you around the encyclopedia a lot and I trust your judgment, I'm just curious to know why the sudden change.

I'd be very grateful if you put any response on my talk page, as I am not on WP very frequently these days.

cheers,

Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 04:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Victims of old vandalism

See Talk:Brain tumor#Causes; I indirectly indicated a statement of yours. JoergenB (talk) 18:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Collectonian

There's new evidence that Collectonian is continuing in her quasi-abusive, high-handed, anti-intellectual, dismissive, not very smart style. She's really a pox on Wikipedia. Perhaps it should be revisited since she seems to have responded poorly to a reasonable suggestion that she improve her practices. But then maybe you're not up for that, which I also understand. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

If you want to whinge on my talk page, then that's (usually) okay with me, but have you considered the options at WP:Dispute resolution?

It doesn't look like you've ever been involved in a user RfC, so I have a practical suggestion for figuring out whether this forum seems like something you'd want to consider in your dispute with Collectonian: Try one out.

Specifically, please go read Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Michael H 34, look at the behaviors discussed there, and describe what you see (your "view") on the RfC/U page. It's a fairly quiet page, so people would be (very) grateful for any outside editor's willingness to spend an hour giving them a fresh, unbiased opinion and any advice that seems appropriate. It's also not terribly drama-oriented, everyone's being pretty civil, and the identified patient seems to be on a wikibreak, so it's kind of a safe one (and it might be pleasant for you to see editors disagreeing without being rude). Post your view, and watch the page for a week or two. See what happens, and see if you can help resolve the dispute. During that week or two, look over other RfC/U pages, and see what you think about how they're run. Then come back here and tell me what you think. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to ask...

Was this a joke? Swarm^(Talk) 08:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

No.

That problem needs to be addressed. It cannot be effectively addressed by WQA. They therefore need to file the RfC/User and proceed through that level of dispute resolution, even though Ratel and Gamaliel know that it is highly likely to be tedious, time-consuming, and unpleasant step.

Note that I also don't expect the RfC/U to produce a proper sense of sourcing in THF -- candidly, I'm not convinced that anything will, and a topic ban may be necessary -- but RfC/U is the next step, and it's time to move on. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. One way or another, an RFC/U is in order. I just found it ironic that although THF filed the WQA, you explicitly told Ratel and Gamaliel to file it against THF. Thought it might just be sarcasm to point out that THF is actually the problem or something like that. Swarm^(Talk) 20:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Purely a practical point on my part: An RfC/U cannot be filed unless you can find two (or more) editors that have experienced and attempted to resolve the same problem with another editor(s). Ratel + Gamaliel = two editors. THF by himself can't get an RfC/U through the 48-hour certification stage. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Mentorship 1

Although I think that you are likely to be disinterested, I write to invite you to join others in becoming a co-mentor for me.

You may be unaware that the "Finding of facts" in the decision at Tang Dynasty explicitly encompasses a message on your talk page -- see User talk:WhatamIdoing#WP:V

Your experience will help remedy a deficit in the composition of a small group. The nascent status of a mentorship committee is clarified in the currently active thread at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification/Tang Dynasty. Hopefully, this mentorship experiment will prove to be more effective and less burdensome than previous wiki-mentoring schemes.

This is a time for hortatory concepts. Do you know this one?

"I am only one, but I am one. I can not do everything, but I can do something.

I must not fail to do the something that I can do."

If Wikiquote:Helen Keller#Misattributed is to believed, then I am not alone in linking these words with Helen Keller. The salient question becomes this: Does precise attribution matter in the context of a teachable moment? No – not always, but often.

What can I say or do to convince you to agree tentatively?

Core policies are the tools at hand; and if you agree to help connect the dots, it could benefit more than me. In this search for a mentor deemed acceptable by ArbCom, I cite Wikipedia:Mentorship#Unintended consequences as a plausible context for discussing what I have in mind.

Your background causes me to share something already explained to another prospective mentor, "Among a prospective mentor's many burdens, the most difficult would involve (a) helping me discern why or when I should apologize or (b) helping me to explain why or when I will not apologize in a wiki-context" -- see diff. May I offer an on-topic writing sample? As you think about agreeing to join a mentorship committee, please review Patrick Lennox Tierney#Showa apology rebuffed.

Are you willing to look into this a bit further? I assume that time constraints will limit your participation; but perhaps you might consider making yourself available as a "non-public mentor", as an advisor to the co-mentors whose questions are likely to be different than mine?

If you please, contact me by e-mail or on my talk page. --Tenmei (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Tenmei. I will consider your request for a few days, but my initial inclination is not to be a mentor.

I have a question for you: Are you familiar with the distinction between shame cultures and guilt cultures? Which kind of culture would you find more familiar or comfortable? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing -- Thank you for your thoughtful response.

As you think about what you might be willing to do, please bear in mind that I'm asking you to join a group in which potential burdens or constraints will be mitigated. This is explained briefly at WP:A/R/C/Tang Dynasty#Response to Stephen Smith. If you like, please feel free to contact any of the others who are tentatively investing in this mentorship venture -- see User:Tenmei/Sub-page Alerts.

Two rakan evoke a teachable moment, searching together for a focal point?

Your questions suggest a tactic which brings me closer to the perspective of someone I don't understand. Extrapolating from your lines of enquiry, the game theory focal point is shifted. I only begin to try to contrive a hypothesis derived from a point of view not my own; but it is a step in a useful direction. Thank you.

I have sent you an e-mail.

Please contact me by e-mail. I hope to build from this beginning; and I would prefer to continue this in an off-wiki venue. --Tenmei (talk) 06:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing -- I didn't reach out to you randomly in June 2009, nor now. I had something in mind, but your questions overwhelm that logic-chain. I can't thank you enough for helping me see a fulcrum and levers I couldn't otherwise perceive.

Sharpening the focus, I have stricken all but three sentences above; and I re-post and number them here:

1. "Finding of facts" in the decision at Tang Dynasty explicitly encompasses a message on your talk page -- see User talk:WhatamIdoing#WP:V

2. Core policies are the tools at hand; and if you agree to help connect the dots, it could benefit more than me.

3. I cite Wikipedia:Mentorship#Unintended consequences as a plausible context for discussing what I have in mind.

If you please, you might better understand what I'm asking if you will review WP:A/R/C#Statement by Tenmei, especially

A. Response to Steven Smith

B. Response to Coren

C. Response to Roger Davies

In my context, your questions were valued like pearls of great price.

In thanks for highlighting "the distinction between shame cultures and guilt cultures," please accept two quotes as unexpected gifts. I hope you find them timely and arguably useful and divorced from shame or guilt.

• "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts" — attributed to Daniel Patrick Moynihan; variants: (a) "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts" — quoted in Robert Sobel's review of Past Imperfect: History According to the Movies edited by Mark C. Carnes; (b) "You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts" — quoted in Timothy J. Penny, Facts Are Facts, National Review September 4, 2003; (c) "You’re entitled to your own opinions. You’re not entitled to your own facts" &mdsh; Ellen Hume, Tabloids, Talk Radio and the Future of News, part 4 (TOC), 1995 cites this as something Moynihan said to a "1994 electoral opponent on WNBC in New York".
• "Truth is generally the best vindication against slander." — Abraham Lincoln, , responding to complaint about Montgomery Blair, Postmaster-General, in Bartlett's Familiar Quotations, 10th ed. (1919); John Hay, Abraham Lincoln: A History (1890)

"Truth is generally the best vindication" – full text of letter in which quote appears

July 14,1864.— Letter To Secretary Stanton. Executive Mansion, Washington, July 14,1864. Hon. Secretary of War. Sir: Your note of to-day inclosing General Halleck's letter of yesterday relative to offensive remarks supposed to have been made by the Postmaster-General concerning the military officers on duty about Washington is received. The general's letter in substance demands of me that if I approve the remarks I shall strike the names of those officers from the rolls; and that if I do not approve them the Postmaster-General shall be dismissed from the Cabinet Whether the remarks were really made I do not know, nor do I suppose such knowledge is necessary to a correct response. If they were made, I do not approve them; and yet, under the circumstances, I would not dismiss a member of the Cabinet therefor. I do not consider what may have been hastily said in a moment of vexation at so severe a loss is sufficient ground for so grave a step. Besides this, truth is generally the best vindication against slander. I propose continuing to be myself the judge as to when a member of the Cabinet shall be dismissed. Yours truly, A. Lincoln in Abraham Lincoln: Complete Works, Vol. II, pp. 547-548 (1907).

If you are disinterested in a role in the cohort of ArbCom-approved "public mentors," perhaps you might be willing or able to be a non-public mentor/advisor? --Tenmei (talk) 20:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Whittemore Peterson Institute RfC

I have changed the timestamp position to see if the bot processes it as discussed and it does. So we can close this point on the RfC talk page.

Since you've responded to the actual RfC instance, it's worth saying that we had already discussed all of these issues in the talk pages in the weeks before, and thought we had an agreed consensus on all these points. K just waited a week then filed the RfC to reopen these discussions again without cross-referencing these discussions. On (1) and (2) we don't have a problem adding factual text, just not hoisting these points into the first few introductory lines of the article. There isn't a single MEDRS (or to my knowledge field expert) which describes this paper as controversial, and we already cover the media generated controversy. The history section already states that WPI has set up a small laboratory prior to the opening of its new facility later this year.

Re (3) our main argument always was the WP:UNDUE issue, but K also rephrased the source to imply something that it never actually said. The text she included was "working as a bartender", but the RS said that she was tending a bar at a yacht club. I've referenced PDFs from the yacht club website concerned showing that she was actually a member of the club (and a junior commodore). It's quite common in this sort of club for members to tend the bar on a voluntary basis. We asked her under WP:V to prove that Mikowits was "working as a bartender". She refused to do so, saying the onus was on us to prove that she was not. So her wording fails WP:V as well.

Re (4), at one stage we had a bunch of "A said", "B said" sources in the article which gave a balanced if somewhat tawdry summary of this use of the press. K kept deleting all the "B said" sources because her position was that this article was about A and therefore what B said was coatracking (even though they were criticising A). Again she also converted the wording from an observation by the journalist into a direct quote by Mikovits. After discussion our consensus was that it was best to remove them all and put in a blanket statement with the references for readers to look at if they wish.

We have no problem with including balanced content that passes WP:V and which isn't shown to be factually incorrect by other RS. But we do have a problem with the tactics and editing practices that this editor employs, but as I now know these are best addressed in a user RfC. -- TerryE (talk) 09:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Point 3 is why I responded; that kind of detail is so obviously irrelevant that its inclusion could only be motivated by either a complete misunderstanding of the concept of an encyclopedia, or an effort to smear the scientist by association with 'menial labor' and drunkenness.

Not only do we not care who suggested she look into the company, we don't care where they met, what the weather was, what kind of vehicle she drove to the interview, or what color suit she wore. If Keepcalm keeps pushing for the inclusion of that detail, then please let me know (the page is not on my watchlist). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Richard Lindzen

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Richard Lindzen, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- TS 12:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Refactored

Hope my refactoring is acceptable and useful per your "yeay" vote. Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman 19:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Asgardian RFC closed, now at arbitration

Hello,

Thank you for participating on the discussion page in the recent RFC/U regarding Asgardian‎. The RFC has been closed, and the case is now at arbitration. You are neither required nor requested to participate, but you may view the initial statements for the case (please do not edit that page), and you may view the evidence presented and add more evidence if you wish, or simply follow the case. BOZ (talk) 03:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not surprised to hear that this case has ended up at ArbCom. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Non-Hodgkin lymphoma

I don't understand your reverts to my edits of Non-Hodgkin lymphoma at all.

For example, if the 1982 Working Formulation is obsolete, and the 2001 WHO classification is now used, why put the 1982 Working Formulation first? And is this too complicated for the introduction? --Nbauman (talk) 16:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

NHL is the Working Formulation; the Working Formulation papers created the concept of NHL. So your question is, in the end, "Why should we put the subject of this article first, and why put the subject of this article in the introduction?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I've lost you. The only recent textbook I have handy is Harrison's. I can't find mention of the 1982 Working Formulation, or any "Working Formulation," in Harrison's. Neither could I find any mention of "Working Formulation" in a search of the online New England Journal of Medicine. Nor is there any link to the sources of "Working Formulation" in Non-Hodgkin lymphoma or Working Formulation. What's a WP:RS for that statement?

The WP entries say that the Working Formulation is obsolete, and is only used for continuity in statistical comparisons with older data. Is that correct?

If the Working Formulation is obsolete, what do they call the classification they use now? Harrison's just calls it, "WHO Classification of Lymphoid Malignancies." Nbauman (talk) 02:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the Wikipedia articles are correct (within the limits of my knowledge), and no, it is not reasonable to expect to find the Working Formulation in any modern textbook, or details about its mid-1990s successor (the REAL classification) in any very recent textbook, because it is obsolete. Textbooks are not generally in the business of providing obsolete information.

Classifying lymphomas according to whether or not they are inside ("Non-Hodgkin") or outside ("Hodgkin") of the scope of the (obsolete) Working Formulation is obsolete: See, for example, PMID 14744745 "For lymphomas, the first (ICD-O-1) and second (ICD-O-2) editions generally classified lymphomas according to the Working Formulation and other now-obsolete schemes."

You'll find the current classification scheme at ICD-O-3, whose implementation began in 2001. You might be interested in more history.

IMO, what's more important than the name of the current scheme is that they're in a period of splitting rather than lumping: They are trying to figure out how many different varieties of lymphoma exist, and give them individual names, rather than trying to lump them together in an overarching scheme (like "low grade" or "anything except Hodgkin"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

So you don't have a WP:RS for the discussion of Working Formulation. Shouldn't we delete it from the article? --Nbauman (talk) 04:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the problem that you are attempting to address.

What "discussion" of the Working Formulation are you talking about? Do you want a source that verifies the existence of the Working Formulation? One that indicates the the Working Formulation is about lymphoma, and not, e.g., heart disease? Something else?

What actual problem are you trying to solve? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the best way to explain it would be to put a flag on Non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

My underlying problem is that the NHL article seems to me to be difficult for a non-specialist to understand WP:MTAA. I've talked to a lot of cancer patients, and even to a lot of professionals whose clients are cancer patients, and my sense is they wouldn't understand this entry. If somebody has NHL, Wikipedia is often the first place they land when they try to find out more about it, and I think we should give them an article that is easy for them to understand -- at least in the introduction. I don't get upset if the sections below are technical. --Nbauman (talk) 06:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's start from the beginning: Are you aware that nobody really has NHL? NHL is not a disease: it's an artificial conglomeration of several dozen different -- and in some cases unrelated -- diseases. Nobody has "NHL"; nobody has "cancer"; nobody has "heart disease". They have specific lymphomas, specific cancers, and specific kinds of heart disease. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I wasn't aware of that. What do you mean? Can somebody have diffuse large B cell lymphoma?

I've seen articles in journals that referred to patients with NHL. There are subtypes, with different morphology, and more recently with different molecular markers and now DNA characteristics. For certain purposes you can say that somebody has NHL. For other purposes you want a more specific diagnosis. I thought artificial constructs were useful.

If you want to start from the beginning, a good place to do it would be in Non-Hodgkin lymphoma. --Nbauman (talk) 08:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you can have DLBL: it is properly a disease. By "disease", I mean that there is a single type of pathology affecting a single type of cell, that produces a reasonably consistent set of symptoms, and that is usefully treated (to the extent possible under current knowledge and technology) in the same way as any other patient with DLBL -- but is different, e.g., from AILT, which has a different pathology, different cell, somewhat different symptoms, markedly different lab results, different treatments, and different prognosis.

NHL is not properly a disease; it is a category of diseases. A patient should never be told that he (or she) has NHL, any more than you would tell someone that he has "genetic disorder" as if "genetic disorder" rather than, say, Familial Mediterranean fever, were the name of the actual disease.

Consequently, your hypothetical statement above ("If somebody has NHL, Wikipedia is often the first place they land when they try to find out more about it") isn't appropriate: The patient should be looking at DLBL or whichever page describes their specific type of lymphoma (or Lymphoma, or even Cancer, if they want more general information) -- and not the NHL article, since knowing the history and current uses of the name for an outdated classification system does not tell them anything useful or appropriate their actual disease. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if every doctor would agree with you. I just read an article in the NEJM, "Stage IV Chronic Kidney Disease." They use the term "disease" to include a range of diseases from different causes, including hypertension, arterial obstruction, ureteral obstruction, infection, autoimmune response, etc. Is "kidney disease" a disease? Should a doctor tell a patient that he has "kidney disease"?--Nbauman (talk) 16:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Certainly not: Patients should be told exactly what they have (and the certainty to which this diagnosis is established), not fobbed off with vague categories. Wouldn't you rather be told that you have Goodpasture syndrome instead of "some kidney problem or another, but don't trouble your pretty little head with the details"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

A 54-year-old woman with diabetes and hypertension comes in to a doctor's office. He sees from her laboratory reports that since her last visit, her urinary protein excretion has increased to 2.8g/24h. Her serum creatinine has increased to 3.1 mg/dL. Her estimated GFR has gone down from 60 ml/min/1.73m3 to 26 ml/min/1.73m3. He tells her that he'll have to do some more tests to see what's causing it. Until he figures out what's causing it, can he tell her she has kidney disease? --Nbauman (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Not if the physician pretends that this is a proper diagnosis or enough information to direct treatment. IMO what the physician needs to communicate is something much closer to, "your kidneys don't seem to be functioning very well, and we need to figure out what's going on and how to address this problem" than "you have Kidney Disease". "A disease that is affecting your kidneys" is ultimately different from "Kidney Disease" as a proper noun. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The New England Journal of Medicine calls it kidney disease. Are they wrong? --Nbauman (talk) 17:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

NEJM does not call "it" Kidney Disease; they are obviously discussing many different diseases that affect the kidneys.

Please note the moving goalposts: Your question above was specifically directed towards the patients ("If somebody has NHL..."), not to experts that are already aware of the diversity of diseases of the kidney. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The NEJM has an article called "Stage IV Chronic Kidney Disease," which is about kidney disease of many causes.

You say NHL is not a disease, as you use the term, because it doesn't have a single pathology.

I didn't think that a disease has to have a single pathology. An example is kidney disease, which can be caused by any one of several pathologies (or a combination).

When a patient comes into a doctor's office with a complaint, the doctor doesn't always know at the initial presentation what the cause is, what the pathology is, what the effective treaments will be, much less the molecular characterization.

That's true of kidney disease and NHL.

As I understand it, at that point, a doctor could reasonably tell the patient that he or she has kidney disease, or NHL, before he has the specifics that further testing will give him.

After he gets home, the patient might reasonably do a Google search for "non-hodgkins lymphoma". If he winds up on a Wikipedia page, I want to make that page as helpful for him as possible.

I don't see the difference between "kidney disease" and "A disease that is affecting your kidneys". --Nbauman (talk) 18:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you understand the difference between providing a diagnosis of "a" disease of the kidneys rather than "the" disease of the kidneys, or "a" lymphoma and "the" lymphoma? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I will have to defer making a decision about this matter until I can look it up in the JAMA style book. --Nbauman (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I was just throwing out old files and I found an ASCO 2010 calendar, illustrated with a painting for every month by a cancer survivor. They identified two of the artists as "Cancer Survivor, Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma" (January and November). This is official ASCO "Doctor-approved information for patients," reviewed for accuracy. So oncologists say that patients have NHL. I can't think of anyone more authoritative than ASCO. --Nbauman (talk) 01:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I'd take American Society of Hematology over ASCO on this point, since ASCO is primarily interested in solid tumors rather than hematological malignancies. I'd also take the World Health Organization, since they own the codes -- and have rejected "NHL" as anything other than a legacy code (for situations like "patient had some kind of lymphoma 20 years ago... but we don't know what kind it was"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

This is pedantic. My goal on Wikipedia is to explain medicine in terms that the non-technical reader can understand. This includes cancer patients, people who care for them, biology students, computer science majors, or anybody who is curious.

Doctors tell their patients they have NHL. The American Cancer Society and ASCO web site have pages on NHL. So somebody could reasonably come to Wikipedia for information on NHL. If the summary of the entry is so confusing that they can't understand it, you've defeated the purpose of Wikipedia.

If your target audience can't understand your writing, why are you writing it? --Nbauman (talk) 18:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

If by "pedantic" you mean "precise and accurate", then I accept that honor. Here's what I want for the NHL page: I want the person who looks at this page to know that

• NHL is an outdated term whose use is deprecated by all authorities except those doing historical/statistical work (who don't have any other options). (N.B.: Patient-led support groups are not authorities.)
• NHL is a term for a class of diseases, not a single disease
• NHL means, in plain English, "all the lymphomas except the Hodgkin's lymphomas", which is as imprecise as "all the viral infections except the common cold".
  • This means that "your" NHL is not the same as "his" NHL or "her" NHL
  • This means that nobody has 'the 39 distinct lymphomas characterized solely by the fact that they aren't the other four lymphomas'
• This means that if the reader wants to know something about one of those 39 distinct diseases, then he (or she) is better off reading about the specific disease than about the disease class.

In short, I want readers off this page as quickly as possible, so that they can get to the correct page for the specific condition that they're interested in. A person concerned about a rare T-cell lymphoma is not served by reading a bunch of irrelevant summaries about the far more common B-cell lymphomas that overwhelm the statistics for NHL. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

What is your WP:RS for saying that "NHL is an outdated term whose use is deprecated by all authorities except those doing historical/statistical work (who don't have any other options"? It can't be true. ASCO and ACS use the term. They're authorities (if you want to be precise and accurate. --Nbauman (talk) 00:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, WhatamIdoing. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine.
Message added 22:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

MaenK.A._Talk 22:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

MOS vs MOSMED precedence

WhatamIdoing, I was going to post a follow-up on your talk page first, but the last time I tried this with an experienced editor he deleted my Q from the talk page, which is his right I suppose. So I decided that it would be better to raise this one the appropriate policy talk page: Wikipedia talk:Etiquette#Introduce WP:ANSWERQ or equivalent. What I am trying to do is to get advice and the perspective of a editor who has a lot more experience of Wikipedia than me. So perhaps you might wish to add this, and I would value this.

In terms of your comments on the WPI RfC, I suspect that you missed it but I had previously gave a detailed statement of why WP:MOS goes not prohibit the use of Dr and why WP:CREDENTIALS is a sub-point of WP:MOSBIO and doesn't apply here. At least that's what the actual words in the guidelines say. Perhaps you can give your views on this particular point on the WPI talk page? Thanks -- TerryE (talk) 02:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can determine, the MoS does "prohibit" the use of 'Dr' -- as strongly and directly as it "prohibits" anything -- and the only issue left in my mind is how long you're going to keep up this unfortunate wikilawyering about whether the MoS applies to mainspace articles. You may need to make a bigger effort to WP:HEAR the people who disagree with you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for you honest feedback. As I said on the note that I referred to above I only got into "Wikilawyering" in the first place as a defence against other editors who repeatedly use this strategy against me. The WP:HEAR advice is good and it's a pity that it's not more widely applied. The majority view here always was that the Dr form makes more sense but one editor chose to revert three other editors repeatedly on this point, which is why I resorted to the RfC, rather than repeating a revert. Now the view is 4-2 of the other editors (excluding us 2) for the Dr use. What I just find odd if that if MOSBIO sections are going to be applied outside its stated scope then why not just change the wording of the article to reflect this? Thanks again. -- TerryE (talk) 10:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess that we must be on different time zones. I have just added a comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)#RfC on CREDENTIAL. I feel that you have misinterpreted one aspect of my claim (what mathematician's call confusing necessity and sufficiency). I am not saying that CREDENTIAL can never apply outside a Bio (which is what you state), as clearly there are times when it makes sense to do so -- for example if the article is makes multiple references to a person, then it makes sense to apply CREDENTIAL to second and subsequent references. It is the minority editor that seems to be claiming that CREDENTIAL should always apply even in non-Bios (and should be treated as a policy rather than a guideline). I am only saying that this is clearly not the case. Let me reread the wording of the RfC and clarify if necessary. -- TerryE (talk) 12:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Your effort to distinguish between policies and guidelines according to how often one may safely ignore them is doomed: WP:RS, for example, is 'just' a guideline. WP:TE is 'just' an essay -- and it is cited in blocking editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand the point that you make, and yes WP:RS is a guideline and but it is really underpinned by WP:V. I haven't come across WP:TE because I've only read the essays that have been quoted against me. In reality these documents do form a legal framework -- that of the Wikipedia world -- and in any legal framework issues of consistency, completeness, precedent are important otherwise the system is just open to too much abuse. I am only trying to get my head around this system.

I suspect that your inference is that I am being a little tendentious myself in initiating this RfC. It must seem that way, but you should understand the background here: I and a number of other editors got sucked into a couple of articles because we felt that they were being used as attack pieces; that the content from one editor frequently failed basic verification and often distorted what the sources said. We would explain why, and get no direct response to specific points of detail; we would discuss and make changes to align wording to the sources. Then every few weeks we would be faced with a mass revert which would undo most of these changes with a random collection of these WP acronyms as the main justification; tens of hours of discussion and agreement from 3-5 other editors down the pan at a stroke. That's why I started reading these WPs; that's why I am struggling to understand how this system works and how to work within it -- because it's either that or I accept that Wikipedia content isn't about truth and accuracy at all; it's about who knows how to manipulate the system to their own ends and who they can get to support them. In this case what it is so wrong about Dr Donnica Moore or Donnica Moore, MD that an editor can wave the CREDENTIAL flag and override 5 other editors six times on this? If this is the case, then what about the other 100,000 odd references to Dr XXXX in Wikipedia. Do we have to change them as well? I thought that with the RfC I could at least get this one removed from this week's mass revert :( I guess I was wrong. -- TerryE (talk) 19:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Your question goes the other way, too: What's so important about "Dr Donnica Moore" (who, for all that tells me, could have a PhD in English Literature from an online diploma mill) that the much more informative statement, "Donnica Moore, the celebrity physician", isn't acceptable to you?

RS and TE are, by the way, my standard examples for this point. How Wikipedia classifies pages in the Wikipedia: namespace defies any simple explanation. (The mere fact that I have standard examples for this point should reassure you that you are not the first editor to discover that it's more complicated than any reasonable person would expect.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

To be honest the use of "celebrity" sounds promotional and make me squirm. "Donnica Moore, the physician" is accurate but unwieldy. "Donnica Moore, MD" is the normal usage; it is a lot more specific and succinct, and my first alternative suggestion, but if I propose that on the article again then we'll just have another edit bout. Here we are having a civilised discussion and if this is what went on the article's talk page, then we would quickly negotiate a compromise. Each respects and replies constructively to the others point. I give on this one, you on that and we quickly move towards some mutually acceptable middle ground. But this only works if both parties do this. If only ... :(

Re what I described as Wikipedia's legal framework and your comment that "it's more complicated than any reasonable person would expect." This shouldn't be a badge of pride; it's a badge of sadness and a sign that the framework is poorly maintained. As I said on the other project page, these documents should say what they mean and mean what they say.

One last note. Whatever possible useful discussion that I hoped to realise by having this RfC is spent. It makes no sense leaving it open. The project talk page seems a better place for requesting comment than the request for comment process. -- TerryE (talk) 12:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

"Donnica Moore, MD" doesn't tell you whether she is a licensed physician -- only that some (possibly unaccredited) medical school gave her a diploma. My impression is that about 2% of MDs in the US don't actually manage to pass their licensing exams (at least, not on time) and thus aren't allowed to practice medicine. Far more than that have retired from practice or lost their licenses. All of these people are still entitled to describe themselves as "MDs". It is the license that makes you a physician, not the academic degree.

Given that the company has hired her as a spokesperson, I assume that "celebrity" was considered a significant and perhaps even necessary qualification for the job. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Your point "MD ≠ physician" is a good one. We do know the references in her Bio that she went to Princeton/UC Dublin/SUNY Buffalo (where she received her MD), followed by residency in Temple U and a Mem Hosp in NJ. I don't know enough about the US licensing system to discover whether and in which state she is a licensed physician, and I don't know if you would classify this as an "unaccredited school", but it seems unlikely. One of the Bio refs [2] which explains that "A long-time struggle with scoliosis and unsatisfactory doctors’ visits led Dr. Moore to study medicine — to become a doctor who put the patient first. During her residency at Temple University, Dr. Moore went through major surgery to correct her spine and was later urged by her surgeon to not continue a physically demanding medical practice." She went straight from residency into industry then media advocacy as an MD. Her RSs refer her to as an MD and that is how she seems to be widely referenced. Perhaps this is a good reminder why we should stick to wording from the RS and avoid interpretation beyond their meaning. -- TerryE (talk) 19:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting wrinkle, and without knowing where she lives (or last worked or trained), you'd probably have to check every single state's licensing register. However, I doubt that the source would say, "As physician, writer and NBC TV host, Dr. Donnica Moore fights the good fight for women's health" if she didn't have a license (or at least a right to reclaim a license at will; I believe some states allow a kind of suspended license for people who can't practice due to disability).

While we should stick to the sources' facts, we are not required to stick to the sources' style book: We should present their facts in our style. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Desease

Obesity was a status symbol in renaissance culture: "The Tuscan General Alessandro del Borro", attributed to Charles Mellin, 1645. Well, Renaissance ended in XVI century, many years before 1645. And the identity of the painting's subject ("The Tuscan General") is not so obvious. The ref isn't an official site, we need a verifiable source. --Gherardus (talk) 01:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can make out, the ref is merely intended to support "This is the name of this painting. This is the probable name of the painter. This is the year that the painter painted this painting." I have no reason to believe that this ref is inadequate for this purpose.

The ref does not say that obesity was a status symbol during the Renaissance, or at any other time: it merely reports the basic facts about the painting. If you want information about obesity as a status symbol during eras when famine and poverty-driven malnutrition were unfortunately common among all except the wealthiest people, then you might like to read Obesity#History_and_culture. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Your comments would be appreciated

Given some of your recent comments on various policy pages... you may want to take a look at the current discussion concerning WP:HANDEL at WT:Editing policy and share your thoughts. Blueboar (talk) 18:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for advice

I didn't know it was legal to remove comments on your talk page. Many years ago I actually got in trouble for removing comments on my talk page. The policy must have changed since then. Mac520 (talk) 19:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

That's what I figured. This rule has apparently existed for a couple of years, but a lot of editors don't know about it, and many people (naturally enough) assume that the rules are the same for user talk pages as for article talk pages.

IMO Wikipedia has so many rules that nobody can really be expected to know them all. Happy editing, WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the repair

diff. I was attempting a courtesy restore but you beat me to it. Thank you anyway. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 02:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Given the current state of the discussion, I thought that a repair 'sooner' was better than 'later', and it sounds like you were thinking exactly the same thing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Even though I think I'm done there. I don't think that discussion is going anywhere. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 05:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Taking a break, or limiting replies to once a day, seems like a good idea.

Rather than 'not going anywhere', I'm a bit worried that it may actually go somewhere -- to the site-wide blacklist, to be specific, which IMO would be an over-reaction. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, WhatamIdoing. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine.
Message added 18:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Immunize (talk) 18:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The doctors' mess is on my watchlist; it's not generally necessary to alert me (or most people) to replies there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

True, it is on my watchlist as well. Why have you not responded to my message there? Immunize (talk) 19:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Because WP:There is no deadline; because not responding instantly might encourage responses from other editors; because instant responses are not always thoughtful ones; because I was at the farmer's market -- I could go on, but I doubt that it's necessary.

Either I'll respond when I think that I have something worth saying, or someone else will, or you will correctly interpret the lack of response as an indication that you should use your own best judgment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

So promptly responding to messages is actually discouraged? Immunize (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I won't say that it is discouraged; I say only that sometimes it is less helpful than a delay. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Your recent comments

With respect to your recent comments, "misrepresentation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines"? Completely uncalled for, and unfair to boot. Nothing I've said in the discussion regarding the watch link warrants such claims. --Ckatz^chat_spy 03:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Ckatz, I don't think that you're seeing your comments from an outsiders' view. You don't think this link is justifiable: I don't happen to have an opinion on this one, but I agree that thousands of links aren't justifiable (and such links should not be added).

But your comments are easily (mis)interpreted as indicating that the link is actually prohibited, which IMO (and in the opinion of most editors at the WP:External links noticeboard) is not true. One of the reasons for the confusion here is that your complaints parallel certain parts of the guideline, even though they go well beyond the usual application. You don't have to explicitly quote, e.g., "Links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising" or name the guidelines for reasonable people to assume that your objection to the couple of Google ads on the page are likely based on your strict interpretation of WP:ELNO#EL5. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Mentorship

WhatamIdoing -- I hope you are willing to help me with what appears to be a non-standard problem-set.

1st try -- message was plausibly "puzzling" or too complicated

At best, this enquiry will serve as a tipping point which reminds you of favorable impressions. At worst, this diff becomes the sound of one hand clapping. The topic needing resolution is something to do with organizing? or structural planning? This is a draft effort to use graphics as a tool in crafting a non-verbose response to Carcharoth's diffs here and here. Please help me improve this with constructive criticism. What I construe as Carcharoth's main points are highlighted in yellow. I plan to post the following in an ArbCom thread. Can it be made clearer? shorter? better? If you please, I hope you will help resolve this situation by making a thoughtful comment at active ArbCom thread. Note: The text highlighted in beige is already posted in the thread. Arbitrator views and discussion I note the comments of a few of the editors approached to act as mentors. I would like to know (a) how you will address differences amongst yourselves (a situation we have encountered in other mentoring situations); (b) what range of actions you are willing to undertake as individuals and as a group; (c) how the "group" will work when Tenmei is also receiving private advice from individuals not specifically included in the group of mentors. In answer to the question above, Tenmei's six-month topic ban on the subject of Tang Dynasty begins once the mentorship is approved. Risker (talk) 05:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC) This can't move forward until Risker's questions above are answered. Could a clerk please notify the editors who need to comment here. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 13:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Tenmei, if you want DGG to comment here, by all means invite him to do so. As for your comments about "raising the bar", it is not unreasonable for us to ask the possible mentors to lay out here what they see as their role in all this. I count, so far, Doc James and Kraftlos (of those you list) and in addition to this, Nihonjoe and Coppertwig. The layout at User talk:Tenmei/Sub-page Alerts is impressive, but there needs to be some indication of how this will work, otherwise this risks becoming a time sink if it goes wrong. Carcharoth (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Tenmei, I'm supportive of you resuming editing with mentors, but please be patient and wait for other arbitrators and those willing to mentor you to respond here. I realise it must be frustrating for you, but if you wait just a little bit longer and let others speak, then we may finally get something workable set up here. We want this to work, not collapse because it was not set up properly. Carcharoth (talk) 03:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC) GOOD — yes, of course "...it is not unreasonable for us to ask the possible mentors to lay out here what they see as their role in all this"Carcharoth NO -- it is unreasonable to pose ill-defined hypotheticals. Unreasonable to expect anyone to formulate crisp analysis or "answers" given that parameters of prospective mentoring issues are non-specific. The flexible role of mentors exists to address unforeseen problematic circumstances which can only happen as the future unfolds. Establishing tentative framework of organization and plan for mentoring task force is accomplished; but it was and continues to be a time sink in relation to primary mentoring objectives, e.g., addressing express WP:TLDR problems. --Tenmei (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC) WRONG "...there needs to be some indication of how this will work, otherwise this risks becoming a time sink if it goes wrong."Carcharoth NO -- No one can predict how this is going to work. The only thing to be done is to see how the teamwork relationships evolve across coming weeks and months. NO -- this is already a time sink with no observable rewards/outcomes, no difference in non-contextualized speculations, no way to distinguish "right" or "wrong", and no apparent linkages with •cohort of allegations in record •principles adduced in record •findings-of-fact adduced in record •remedies adduced in record •record of ArbCom uninvolved inaction. --Tenmei (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC) DISCONNECT? or DISJUNCTION? Further speculative planning is unproductive. Conventions of law of diminishing returns inform prudent decision to terminate pre-planning. The exercise is nothing other than a discouraging time sink. --Tenmei (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC) "...please be patient and wait for other arbitrators and those willing to mentor you to respond here. I realise it must be frustrating for you, but if you wait just a little bit longer and let others speak" Carcharoth NO -- Frustration? Frustration of purpose? I have now waited for NINE MONTHS for responses to questions about what happened in the ArbCom case. •Sept 09, waiting 3 months -- Carcharoth e-mail postpones questions with delay •Dec 09, waiting 6 months -- complaint-driven ArbCom adopts to conclusory allegations without scrutiny or discussion, ArbCom requires delay until mentors can be located •Mar 10, waiting 9 months -- ArbCom exacerbates time sink with delay NO -- Frustration = Aggravation? Making things worse? And this helps to mitigate WP:TLDR in what way? --Tenmei (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC) "...then we may finally get something workable set up here. We want this to work, not collapse because it was not set up properly."Carcharoth NO -- the notion that ArbCom has anything to do with "setting something up" is an illustration of The Emperors New Clothes which entails adverse consequences of pointless delay. NO -- collapse or failure has little or nothing to do with ArbCom except •avoiding time sink of parsing theories and hypotheticals •ensuring that volunteer mentors receive ArbCom's support and encouragement and thanks in addition to mine •determining parameters for decision-making which leads to ending involuntary mentorship. --Tenmei (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC) Involuntary mentorship is defined as punitive. •NINE MONTHS of punishment for what? teaches constructive lessons in what way? •THREE MONTHS blocked editing for what? expands comprehension or understanding in what manner? And this helps to mitigate WP:TLDR as predictable sequelae from what methods? Summarizing this record: Escalating alphabeticals, catchwords, catch phrases, etc. have overwhelmed coherent discussion with references to policy acronyms and loaded language. My seriatim responses were derided as WP:TLDR ... and delay muddied an already complicated array of facts, factoids and factors. --Tenmei (talk) 18:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC) Hypotheticals In theory, it is not unreasonable to ask hypothetical questions; but in practice, the attempt can easily devolve into a time sink. Illustrating the point with a timely issue: Is there a constructive value in examining failures attributable to ArbCom — serial incidents in which ArbCom snatched defeat from the jaws of victory? Can you suggest a better way to solicit your help in a specific context? I have sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

My initial message is now collapsed. Mentors offered suggestions about how I could have written differently:

• diff "I would suggest writing shorter responses ... and just in general not try to summarize the entire situation ...." -- Kraftlos 19:39, 18 March 2010
• diff "I am learning to give people what they ask for. If they want more info, they'll ask for it ... [which] would be better than being flooded with information that must be sorted through. --McDoobAU93 00:40, 19 March 2010

Let's pretend I didn't send you the "1st try" message. Instead, let's assume this "2nd try" message is the beginning of an unanticipated new thread.

If you please, I want to ask for two things:

Advice. I want to ask for comments about the use of format as a device (a) to focus my comments and (b) to limit the number of words.

Action. Will you post a comment at the active ArbCom thread about a mentoring group for me?

Thank you for your willingness to help me to re-think a style of communication which is a barrier to my working collaboratively with other people in our Wikipedia venue. --Tenmei (talk) 18:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Insight?

I have not replied recently because I have been considering your difficulties. I am not certain that it is reasonable to hope for very much success, no matter how the mentorship is structured.

In addition to the general problems with 'involuntary mentorships' (some of which do not apply to your situation), editors who do not understand why ArbCom (and other editors) were unhappy with their work are not usually successful at changing their behavior to conform to the desired standard. It is not a lack of will, or the absence of an ideal structure, but a lack of insight, that impairs such editors. There is, in the end, very little that another person can do to provide such insight to you. Even something that feels like an important breakthrough will only take you a baby step towards a distant goal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Your comments are always thought provoking. I would have thought that fostering insight was one of the essential goals of conventional mentorship relationships; but now that you mention it, I wonder if "insight" is somehow construed as being outside the ambit of Wikipedia:Mentorship#Involuntary mentorship?

I am certain that insight is a topic best discussed in an off-wiki venue, perhaps Google Wave? Google Docs? Google Groups? I will follow-up this topic in an e-mail.

Some aspects of my unique problem set are likely amenable to on-wiki development, i.e., in June 2009, FloNight restated ArbCom's objectives:

• "...style of communication is a barrier to you working collaboratively"
• "You need to focus on changing the things that you can change."
• "...finding ways to enable you to better edit the encyclopedia"

When I return to editing, I plan to adopt a short-term wiki-pacifist strategy; but in the long-term, insight becomes an unavoidable issue.

Your words are timely and meaningful. --Tenmei (talk) 18:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Formatting text replies can be helpful on occasion, but in general, I think that you are better off trying to communicate in plain sentences. Too much formatting (e.g., multiple colors) can distract the reader from the words.

I do not have anything useful to contribute to the ArbCom discussion at this time. I do not want to be identified as a mentor (whether voluntary, involuntary, public, non-public, occasional or otherwise) for ArbCom's purposes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Realised I was wrong

Hey WAID, I dunno if you still hold a ill will to me over our disagreement about cookie logins. I wouldn't be posting here again only I noticed a couple of days ago that you were in the right about what you were saying about the cookie login thing. My password is saved, I had assumed wrongly that I had saved it via wikipedia but I had actually saved it via firefox save password feature, so that was why I kept getting logged out every half hour. I happened to save it via wikipedia a couple of days ago and realised that I no longer got logged out and realised that I was wrong. I then thought the manly thing to do would be to admit that I was in the wrong. I do still think that the account was a sockpuppet though and the person that I suspected it of being was recently banned indefinitely for using a large number of sockpuppets. I suppose you can consider this as an apology for myself insisting that I was correct when I was incorrect. How you take this post is up to you.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi LG,

Actually, I'd completely forgotten about that discussion. No harm done, WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of lists and your creation of the subsection "Update"

I noticed that you created a subsection in the Lists of causes of... section at WP:MED. I would like to revert it, as I feel that it may cause confusion that the subsection is on a different topic. Can I revert, or do you feel it is best for it to stay as it is? Immunize (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I created a subsection because the existing section is so large. There's no advantage to requiring editors to scroll through dozens of comments when they want to add a note to the bottom. You can read more about the common practice of creating arbitrary breaks here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

"Most of"

[3] Fair point! That's what I meant, of course, but it needed to be explicit obviously --Jubilee♫clipman 20:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

X at the Asian Games

I've noticed you've de-prodded some of these. I'm going to de-prod them all and re-nominate them with an AfD. Thought you'd like to know. Probably need to wait maybe a half-hour after this message until I've completed that process. Shadowjams (talk) 03:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The ultimate link is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bahrain at the Asian Games. Shadowjams (talk) 03:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your Review

Thanks so much for your review of my (unfinished) article "Targeted therapy of lung cancer". I would appreciate further review after it is finished, which I expect may take about a week. I will post you here to remind you, if that is OK. I was also wondering if you would mind reviewing my article on "Combined Small Cell Lung Carcinoma". I think thast one is decent as is stands, but I plan on doing some further revisions and cleanup over the next week as well.

You can feel free to respond here or on my talk page, as you wish. Comments (positive or negative) or suggestions would be GREATLY appreciated.

Again, my thanks.

With best regards: Cliff (a/k/a "uploadvirus") —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uploadvirus (talk • contribs) 22:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

OOPS ... forgot to sign. Excuse me.

Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS DDF 22:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note.

Yes, please feel free to drop me a note whenever you'd like an assessment for a medicine-related article, or if you've got questions or problems with Wikipedia's (occasionally extremely) complicated way of doing things. Proper reviews, with comments, can be requested at what Wikipedia calls 'peer review' or in the doctors' mess.

If you're not familiar with them, you might like to look over our medicine-related source advice and ideas about how to write good medicine-related articles. Overall, though, I think you're doing fine, and I'm glad that you're doing this work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

CITE

If someone objects to a change in a policy or guideline, especially when it's a drive-by change, the thing to do is respect the objection and discuss on talk, not try to force it back in. It's the second time you've reverted on behalf of Sally Scot at CITE, once against Collectonian's concern and now against mine. Not clear why you'd want to do that. The guidelines and policies need to be stable to some extent, or no one will be able to rely on them. Also, this is better discussed on the talk page. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 03:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

"I can't figure out what changed here" does not constitute "objecting to a change": It constitutes an admission of either laziness or lack of skill on your part.

I'm also not sure how you get from "SallyScot has worked on this page previously" to "SallyScot made a drive-by change", but let me suggest that you spend less effort on worrying about whether the "right" editor made a given change, and more time figuring out what the changes are.

Oh -- and please take your own medicine: If you actually think that discussion is preferable to policy-compliant editing, then you should stop reverting and start talking. If you need help finding the policy's talk page, then you might try looking two tabs to the left of the undo button. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what's gotten into you, but please raise it on the guideline's talk page. You seem to be reverting out of principle, which isn't sensible. That same editor made portions of the guideline very complex before -- parts of it almost unreadable. I'd like to avoid that happening again, so I'd appreciate it if changes could be explained on talk first. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 04:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

"What's gotten into me" is that I have, at least temporarily, reached the end of my patience with your persistent, uncollegial, reactionary ownership on this (and other) P&G pages. Reverting an apparent improvement because you could not be bothered to figure out what changes she made -- which is what you said in your edit summary -- is entirely unacceptable.

If you don't believe that it is unacceptable, then please try to imagine the likely response at ANI if I say:

"A highly experienced admin has repeatedly reverted changes made by two different editors a total of three times because exactly two changes to a whopping three paragraphs in a single section was 'too many changes' for her taste, and, besides, she couldn't be bothered to figure out the (more than usually complex) diff. She's now demanding that anyone who disagrees with her multiple reversions start a discussion -- while hypocritically exempting herself from any obligation to start a discussion. Is this the kind of good example that we expect admins to provide?"

Note that I'll accept just about any plausible excuse, including just plain "I don't like it", but "I don't know what happened, and anyway nobody got my permission in advance, so I'm repeatedly reverting it" is a really undesirable form of WP:OWNership.

Don't judge the change based on who made it: The name in the history doesn't actually affect the guideline. Figure out what the changes did: The changes do affect the guideline. If you're inclined to edit war to preserve a version that no longer enjoys consensus, then I expect you to know what you're edit warring to preserve. For example, I hope that you can identify the difference between SallyScot's change and mine (did you even notice that they were different?), and why SallyScot removed the ref groups from the example. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Correct me if am wrong, but didn't SlimVirgin violate 3RR during that? [4], [5], [6]. Not great behaviour for an admin, either way... --Jubilee♫clipman 06:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

3RR is generally considered to be breached on the fourth reversion ("more than three"), but you're right that even three reversions are generally considered a poor standard of behavior. So is demanding a discussion while refusing to start one.

I'm also unhappy that SV apparently believes that her complaint about a previous, completely unrelated edit -- something that happened over a year ago -- is an excuse for reverting this (see "That same editor made portions of the guideline very complex before", to which the only sensible response is 'So what?'). Reverting today's good work because the editor screwed up last year isn't permitted by any policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the 3RR policy. It almost looks as if she has a vendetta against you, looking at the behaviour pattern, but then again I am not fully in possession of all the facts. Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman 18:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I doubt that SV has a vendetta against me; I just happened to be on the scene when she was giving a pathetic excuse for reverting someone else, and I called her on it. It's not fun to get called to account, but I hope that if I made that kind of mistake, that SV (or somebody) would call me on it. Making a lot of edits means having a lot of opportunities to make mistakes.

I also believe that it's possible that SV had a good (but secret) reason for the reversion. She hasn't chosen to participate in the discussion (which the other editor started, and which promptly demonstrated a consensus for SallyScot's changes, which have been re-installed with minor tweaks), so we don't know if there were any good reasons behind the reversions.

That's okay with me, though: If it's not important enough for SV to explain her reversions on the talk page, then the other editors will automatically ignore her opinion. The few editors who notice her absence will likely assume that, on further reflection, she discovered that she has no rational reason to oppose the changes, and that she has taken the efficient and face-saving approach of silently dropping her opposition rather than interrupting a productive conversation to publicly recant her initial opposition. (And I have no objection to that.) We all make mistakes -- even admins, even editors with 90K edits, even me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I saw the discussion establishing consensus for Sally's edits. The edits seemed to be fairly sound, anyway, so there must (as you say) be something else going on here—but I'm confounded if I can figure out what. Quiet withdrawl seems the most likely explanation, indeed. I, too, prefer people to tell me when I am making mistakes and when my arguments or logic are flawed. On the face of it, that's what SV was doing above but she could have been clearer and initiated discussion herself in the first place rather than complaining that you (reverting her, reverting SS...) didn't initiate the discussion . OTOH, SallyScot, if anyone, probably ought to have initiated the discussionbefore actually changing the text, especially since WP:CITE is such an important document, but hey... I take your point about WP:BOLD and WP:BRD in the context of WP:CONS, though: that method also makes sense at times. More edits = more mistakes... hm: was that a gentle reminder for me re the below or pure coincidence? --Jubilee♫clipman 20:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Strictly coincidental. Wikipedia tends to have a 'cult of experience' -- which is fine, in one sense, because most (but not all) highly experienced editors are less likely to make a mistake. However, even a one-in-a-thousand error rate means I'll screw up at least once a month. (I believe my own error rate is far higher than that, BTW.)

IMO it's ultimately better for Wikipedia if people identify errors as errors, regardless of who made them, instead of landing hard on a newbie's innocent mistakes and letting mine slide -- especially if my mistake is the kind that makes you think, "Anybody with her experience level ought to know better than that!"

I think it's good for experienced editors to keep our fallibility firmly in mind. Getting the previous "999" changes right doesn't mean that we won't screw up the next one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Screwing up is not the point, learning from the screw up is. But the person screwing up might not recognise their error without someone pointing it out—hopefully gently and with constructive advice on how to avoid the same mistake. My error rate is... unknown... But then again, I am only a year-and-a-bit old—or 9 months old if you consider the fact that I didn't edit for almost half a year last summer. Hopefully I'm a quick learner: I have certainly chanced upon some of the best teachers, including you, Martin, Happy-Melon, and Kleinzach (to give him proper credit where due despite his own errors of judgement) and several others, like Okip/Ikip, along the way. I own a massive debt to each of those editors.

Thank you.

BTW, I have sent this thread on a tangent: sorry about that! --Jubilee♫clipman 22:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Good point

Re: [7]. Count me as one of those that had forgotten that fact. I almost feel like going all WP:BOLD and moving the draft infobox over to mainspace myself, now, but that would probably not be constructive at this stage of the game... Anyway, I still don't care two hoots for infoboxes so it would be counter-intuitive. I think Andy put it best—couched as it is in irony and sarcasm—here. That appears to be what several people are saying and those people are becoming more vocal by the day, thank God ([8], [9], [10] (this last somewhat wryly ironic also, perhaps...)) Note, also, Vocediterore's measured responses to Eusebeus, the former being and "old dog" in WP terms and especially as regards classical music articles. Further note the underlying assumptions apparent in and the general drift of this discussion and note even further the complete lack of participation there by any CM regulars other than user:THD3, user:Karljoos and me: where is the supposed consensus if you factor those former two (among many, many others, I suspect) into the equation? WP:CCC indeed... Sorry if this was a rambling aside and of no interest to you... --Jubilee♫clipman 01:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to hear from you.

I have a lot of sympathy for Andy's pointed comment.

Voce's proposal is more measured, but it has an WP:OWNership problem; "main (past) contributors" get no special rights in a consensus-oriented discussion.

I'm not sure that we really need to "close" the RfC in a formal fashion. The problems are being addressed (e.g., in the project's advice page), and even an admin-endorsed closing statement is still not a permanently binding decision. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I have not long read some policy or other (probably WP:CONS and/or WP:OWN) about "main contributors" etc and how they are no more or less important than any one else. Same applies to admins, bureaucrats, stewards, and even the Foundation and the founder(s) [except in certain circumstances], according to what I have read, so obviously if Martin, or even Jimbo himself, closed the debate that action would neither "decide" anything nor bind the WikiProject or anyone else to anything. Correct? That question aside, however, a relatively impartial and experienced eye (admin or no) would help cut through the forest of words to the essentials and be able to gently point out any factual/logical inaccuracies. In any case, the RfC will need to be archived at some point: sooner rather than later, probably. Whatever else is true, this has been a major learning experience for me: I have learnt about several WP processes, I have learnt the specifics of several policies I had previously only vaguely understood; and I have made stupid errors from which I am now learning. The latter include: becoming "ringmaster" and quickly resigning (yes, I know... ); making stupid/uncivil comments and quickly retracting them; and forgetting to preview my edits and having to go back over them 4 or 5 times then realising I can draft my replies in my sandbox or even Windows Notepad. In fact, each of those, taken together go a long way to explaining why my number of edits in the RfC almost exactly equals everyone else's put together! (I have performed a lot of important and necessary refactoring etc, of course, too.) Anyway, another ramble over, I'll leave you in peace... Now, where did my copy of Foundation go...? --Jubilee♫clipman 05:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

A barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For your excellent rewrite of Wikipedia:The difference between policies, guidelines and essays. It's always nice to see someone pull back the curtains and explain how this ridiculous project works.--Father Goose (talk) 21:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Father Goose. I'm glad that you like it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

WOW! That is so much clearer than the page it use to redirect to! Thanks from me too. Now to give the new essay exposure... --Jubilee♫clipman 22:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

On the notability of lists

You may be aware of the debate about the notability of lists, where there is some disagreement between Masem and myself about what defines it as a topic (is it the lead or perhaps the title), and whether list topics are subject to some form of inclusion criteria, e.g. evidence of notability or some other form of external validation. I just don't seem to be able of reach for the right words and your input would be most welcome. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. IMO, the reason this topic is difficult is because the community hasn't actually made up its mind. That's why there is remarkably little written guidance on the subject. But I'll look into the page later, and perhaps I'll think of something useful to say. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Gavin, I just wanted to say that I'm not ignoring your request: I'm just trying to read it! There's almost 50KB of text in that section, and it's slow going. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Question 2

Hi WhatamIdoing, I have a question for you regarding an external link I added on Organ_donation for DoNotTransplant.com. I am not a regular contributor, but I try to be thoughtful in my contributions. I added the link as an alternative for those who want to be on a registry of non-donors. You removed the link and referred to it as "Commercial Spam." Why did you consider this link commercial spam? Is it because there is a fee for the service? (I am aware of that.) Or did you feel it did not apply to the subject matter? Please elaborate on why you removed the link. If I have violated a wikipedia practice, please let me know so that I will not make the same mistake again. My goal was not to spam wikipedia in any way but instead to provide an alternative for those who wish to make it legally clear to family and physicians that they do not wish to donate their organs in the event they become incapacitated. Thank you. Missyagogo (talk) 01:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

It is US-specific; Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia.

Within the US, the organization probably has zero legal recognition. I don't believe that it is generally recognized as a "registry" for the purpose of compliance with the UAGA, and the registry service that they claim to be using doesn't list them among their clients.

Essentially, the only thing they provide (at a cost of $19.95) is a piece of paper that the person could get—at no additional charge—whenever they're writing their regular end-of-life paperwork.

The sole purpose of the website is to extract $19.95 from visitors, which is a violation of WP:ELNO#EL5.

Their primary tactic for extracting the money is scaring the site's visitors: The first page hints that if they die, their relatives will be dreadfully upset over a polite inquiry about organ donation (rather than their death). Their FAQ claims that the family may be charged for donation-related expenses, and implies that the "wrong" kind of people (drug users and illegal aliens) will receive their organs. This, it seems to me, is a violation of WP:ELNO#EL2. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD getting out of hand

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryu Goto (2nd nomination)

Could you review this AfD. It seems that there is a flame war going on in the middle of it which is rather uncivil. I have collasped that section as a temporary solution. Thanks --Jubilee♫clipman 23:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I think I'm glad that you collapsed that section.

The article seems to be getting sourced (in ways that show the fallibility of a gnews search). I wonder if editors will keep claiming that no sources exist, despite the (current) presence of eleven sources in the article? We'll have to see what happens in a few more days. (Are you familiar with WP:HEY?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Anyway you should see the other AfD (the guys sister). Withdrawn with a blunt "f*** you world". (Same nom so you should have little trouble finding it...) Happy editing! --Jubilee♫clipman 23:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Citing sources

I noticed your ping on my watchlist. I sort of lost track of that debate (I'm auditing the Music Mos's...) but I'll try to catch up and comment as appropriate. I'll be away (in Inverness) for a few days from Saturday, though, so I might not be able to say much until I return on Wednesday. Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman 04:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Sticky prods and Pump

Hi, I just wanted to thank you for your reasoned support. Maurreen (talk) 07:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Abortion–breast_cancer_hypothesis#Mixed_results_in_Lead

Would you be able to comment on a dispute we are having on the addition of a new study to the article? Its my opinion, that when the NCI workshop findings are given appropriate context the ABC hypothesis article will be near FA quality. - RoyBoy 15:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed I misspoke there, however I put it this way in the mediation: binding for the present. A bit of a contradiction, but that is the goal. - RoyBoy 18:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

question 3

Hi. You have been a good source in the past on how to cite sources. When I create a page I do add a reference, but I've been getting a message I don't understand, telling me to add a tag, which I thought I had done. What am I doing wrong? If you have the time please see this [11] Thanks. Jim Steele (talk) 16:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jim,

I'm always happy to answer questions like this. The problem is merely that you hadn't created the references section yet, so it didn't know where to display the citation. I've added it for you, so you should be all set. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh. Weird, because I thought I did for the speech and language page, which I'm working on now, and I am getting that same message. I'll try to be more careful.

Jim Steele (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

You have to add either {{reflist}} (if you want slightly smaller than average type) or <references /> (full-size type) or <references></references> (currently least common, useful in WP:LDR) to the page. It looks like someone has fixed the other page for you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I've been copying and pasting that, as pathetic as it is, because I can't find it on the page. If you have the time, check out [12]

I'm working on it. The list in the first paragraph of special education in the U.S. is missing about a third of the articles. So I'm trying to create some articles for these disabilities. Jim Steele (talk) 16:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Another one, because this is frustrating. You'll see here [13] that there are these vertical lines seperating the table and I meant to add an entry and could not find the lines so it ended up on top of the table. Looks like I meant it to stand out, but in fact the date and detail of the model is supposed to be in the title. Not that anyone will likely read it, nor care, but it's a style thing and I tried in vain to place it in the table when I was editing...

Jim Steele (talk) 23:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Oooh, I had exactly the same table-formatting problem once. Trying to figure it almost drove me nuts.

I've fixed this article for you. The solution is that you have to use the vertical bar (the | character) to separate cells, and the bar plus a hyphen (|-) to tell it that you want a new row for the table. If you leave out these magic table-formatting characters, then it completely loses its marbles (as you saw) and places the text in weird places.

About the 'missing' articles: Some of them might exist, just under a different name. For example, Emotional and behavioral disorders might be the same subject as the page you started on EBD (or perhaps it is slightly different, i.e., the medical term vs the legal term). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that. But I'm going to ask a very basic question: where is the vertical bar located on the keyboard?

Jim Steele (talk) 11:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

It might be one of those keys that moves around, but on my Mac, vertical bar is near the upper right corner of the keyboard, "above" the backslash (type shift-backslash), between the delete button and the return key. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Lymphoma

I have made some additional minor edits to lymphoma, including removing a long list of forms of lymphoma and generally cleaning up the article, and would like to hear your input on the matter (given I know you have been active in that article before). Please respond at Talk:Lymphoma. Best wishes. Immunize (talk) 16:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Notifying you of the featured article nomination of Leukemia

I have nominated the page Leukemia for featured article status, see the page here. I am notifying you of this because I noticed that you were a significant contributor to the article. Please feel free to leave a comment at the featured article nomination page. Best wishes. Immunize (talk) 15:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

This article doesn't have even a small chance of passing FA in its current state. I doubt that it would pass even WP:GA. The WP:LEAD is inadequate and several sections are entirely unsourced. I suggest that you consider withdrawing the nomination. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done I have withdrawn the nomination, but I feel it at least deserves Good article status. Despite the unreferenced sections, I feel it is overall fairly well sourced. Immunize (talk) 19:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

While it might technically qualify for GA, based on the written/official standards, the fact is that the people who do most of the GA reviewing tend to have much higher standards than WP:GACR. GA reviews are a bit unpredictable, but I would not expect it to pass GA without at least one inline reference in each section -- and some reviewers will require far more than that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

How can I go about nominating it to be a good article? Immunize (talk) 20:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:GANs are easy, but let me suggest that you first find and add a couple of good sources for those unreferenced sections. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

And make sure it conforms to WP:MEDRS, uses mostly secondary reviews, no primary sources, or it will get killed at FAC :) (See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches.) Also, per WP:MEDMOS, some content is missing-- doesn't look comprehensive yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I've added placeholders for the most important of the missing sections, which should make it easier for editors to identify these gaps in coverage. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated Leukemia for good article status. Immunize (talk) 19:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

"Colored tables because they're pretty"

Could someone look into the work done by 7mike5000, such as the colorful, icon-filled table at Eating disorders#Personality_traits? Do tables like these represent a permissible variation on normal style, or an undesirable cluttering of the page with unnecessary formatting (or something in between)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC) "inquired about the decorative approach at MOS, and the responses can be read here". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

As per WP:Civil, I am asking you in a polite a fashion as possible, to please refrain from making comments such as as the above as it pertains to myself or any contributions I may have made or may make. I believe most people would find that comment to be somewhat disparaging. And your comment leads to comments like: "And 7mike5000 would do well not to refer to his colleagues as "anally retentive" in his edit summaries". Tony (talk) 07:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC) "anal retentive" Freud coined the term not me. A comment like that can easily be construed as implying "or else".

"Yes, the "Skittlepedia" effect is distracting and unprofessional". Dabomb87 (talk) 14:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC) That speaks for itself.

Wikipedia is for everyone, it was not created for a select few to feel like they can call the shots for the other couple of hundred million English speakers, it is not a cabal.

Your initial comments set the stage, others follow. Constructive criticism I do not mind, to purposely make comments such as the aforementioned I do. I wrote Hemoglobin Lepore syndrome to prove a point to someone in a civil fashion. I believe I made a point with the use of exemplia gratia and and id est. I do not make comments to anyone. I keep to myself. I only respond. So to reiterate please refrain from the sarcasm, and going out of your way to dissect everything I do. Thank you. And have an pleasant day. 7mike5000 (talk) 20:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

My question at WT:MOS was not sarcastic, and I strongly doubt that any independent person would describe my comments as uncivil. I'm certainly not going out of my way to dissect your work: Two sentences at the most appropriate forum is hardly "going out of my way". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Sorry, but I see nothing at all WP:POINTy or WP:UNCIVIL in the above posts submitted by WhatamIdoing on WT:MOS. She was merely asking a perfectly reasonable question as far as I can tell. Specifics might help --Jubilee♫clipman 20:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

BTW, 7mike5000 would indeed "do well not to refer to his colleagues as "anally retentive" in his edit summaries" --Jubilee♫clipman 20:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines

Hi. You recently commented about a proposal to caution against deleting what other editors write on talk pages. You suggested narrowing the new caution to address only deletion of comments. I have done so.

I would welcome any further input from you, here.

Thank you. Maurreen (talk) 09:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly either way about these changes. I think that we need to wait for more information from SV. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I am waiting to find out her objection to my latest version. Maurreen (talk) 07:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

NAVHEAD heads up

Thank you for putting a notice about the the Village Pump discussion on the NAVHEAD talk page. I am particularly appreciative since I know you are not enamored with the NAVHEAD concept. Your dedication to fairness sets a good example for other editors, including me. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion nomination of Talk:Health care markets

blanked page

Hi WhatamIdoing, this is a message from an automated bot, regarding Talk:Health care markets. You blanked the page and, since you are its sole author, FrescoBot has interpreted it as a request for deletion of the page and asked administrators to satisfy the requests per speedy deletion criterion G7. Next time you want a page that you've created deleted, you can explicitly request the deletion by inserting the text {{db-author}}. If you didn't want the page deleted, please remove the {{db-author}} tag from the page and undo your blanking or put some content in the page. Admins are able to recover deleted pages. Please do not contact the bot operator for issues not related with bot's behaviour. To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=FrescoBot}} somewhere on your talk page. -- FrescoBot (msg) 08:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Counter

You helped me in the past, and I wondered if you could help me again. I used to access a counter page that could tell me how many edits I made on any Wikipedia page (e.g., an article, a discussion page, a template page, a user pages, etc.). The counter I use can no longer do that for me. I wondered if you know of a counter page that can count how many edits I made on any specific page. Thank you.Iss246 (talk) 03:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You might try this one. If you want detailed/non-summary information, you need to create a page at User:Iss246/EditCounterOptIn.js (with any non-blank content; mine says "Information wants to be free"). Expect a scary-looking warning (boilerplate for all pages ending in .js) when you create the page.

If that counter doesn't do what you want, then please let me know. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I use the first one: http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/pcount/index.php?name=Iss246&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia but it no longer tells me the number of contributions specific article by specific article.

I created this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Iss246/EditCounterOptIn.js&action=edit&redlink=1 but I don't know how to use it. How will it give me a count of, say, the edits I made on the Work & Stress article? Iss246 (talk) 04:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The .js page doesn't seem to exist: it's still a WP:Red link. After you create/save the page, then the other link should provide you much more detail. Compare, e.g., the report you got for your own account with the report for mine (be sure to click the 'show' links at the bottom).

Also, for individual articles, you can try this counter, which can be reached at the "External tools: Revision history statistics" link on every article's history page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't get further than what I already have on my iss246 page. The bottom of my soxred page reads as follows:

Month counts User has not yet opted in. If you want to see graphs, please create User:Iss246/EditCounterOptIn.js with any content. Alternatively, you can create meta:User:Iss246/EditCounterGlobalOptIn.js to opt-in across all Wikimedia wikis. Top edited articles User has not yet opted in. If you want to see graphs, please create User:Iss246/EditCounterOptIn.js with any content. Alternatively, you can create meta:User:Iss246/EditCounterGlobalOptIn.js to opt-in across all Wikimedia wikis.

I don't know what to do with those meta sites. I tried to opt in, but I'm not sure what that means. I can neither get monthly counts (which I once had) and counts of my edits on specific articles and other pages (which I once had). I wouldn't mind if you did the edits for me. I am lost.Iss246 (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I can't do this step for you. Try just this bit:

1. Click here.
2. Click "Start the User:Iss246/EditCounterOptIn.js page"
3. In the resulting edit box, type anything you like -- "I'm so frustrated", "This is harder than necessary", mash the keyboard, anything, but there must be at least one character in the edit box, or it won't save the page properly.
4. Save the page (like you would for anything else).
5. Come back to this page, and let me know that you've gotten this far. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I got the counter working the way I want. Thank you. You are unfailingly helpful. You, and people like you, make Wikipedia a hospitable place. Best wishes.Iss246 (talk) 22:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad that it has worked out. This complication with the .js pages is a new thing, apparently required by some German privacy law. (The toolserver system is physically located in Germany.) Take care, WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

question

Hi. Another question: what's the quickest way to see my userpages (pages I'ves started but haven't yet presented to wikipedia's eager audience)? I've got a couple I am working on and can't find them. Thanks. Jim Steele (talk) 23:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Click here. This uses Special:PrefixIndex, and is described at WP:Subpages. As an alternative, you can look at Special:Contributions/Jimsteele9999 to scan through the list of any page you've ever edited. This is sometimes handy for pages that you've recently edited, but can't quite remember the name of. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Anonymity, etc.

With regard to that paper you reviewed for me, thank you so much for your feedback. I have tried to address and integrate all of the comments you raised. I also sent you back an e-mail with some comments as well. Also, I would like to at least mention you in the paper acknowledgments, so if you want to e-mail me your name I will do that. However, if you wish to maintain anonymity, I totally respect that. Just let me know what you want to do. Thanks again for everything! ---kilbad (talk) 22:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kilbad,

I apologize for disappearing on you. My "e-life" has been disrupted by an unexpected hard drive failure (complete with out-of-date backups for a good deal of relatively unimportant data). My laptop died Wednesday night, with the sudden appearance of an ominous ticking sound -- the sound of a disk head gently scraping data off the drive. I hope to re-read the paper soon -- but please don't wait on me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Hypoglycemia

Hello WAID I am thinking of doing some work on hypoglycemia. I have pulled up a few review articles and intend to reference the peice. Looks like it has been controversial in the past so though I would give you a heads up.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. If memory serves, one of the outstanding questions is whether the AltMed conception of hypoglycemia should be incorporated.

Is there any chance you'd just happen to spontaneously feel like putting this off until the Google project is a little less active? I'm concerned about dividing our attention. It's all very well and good for them to provide these (valuable) external reviews and suggestions, but we're the ones that have to implement the suggestions. And since there are about ten more than 20 of them doing these reviews, I'm concerned that we'll be getting further behind with every new review. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay will do. I still feel that the google reviews have been in the wrong order. Unless an editor is ready for a review and has brought the article as far as the can a review is not as useful as it could be. I was working on the asthma page but it is such a huge topic and there is so much work yet to be done.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind having them start with moderately lousy articles, but they're about 80% done with the reviews, and we're about 20% done with lining up editors to work on them. One of the 'lessons learned' ought to be that Wikipedia's volunteer resources are limited. A pile of excellent suggestions doesn't do us much good if the suggestions never move off the talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Notability of small settlements

I saw that you contributed to the discussion at WT:N#Notability of small settlements, so you may be interested in a policy proposal I have made concerning this issue at the Village pump. Regards. Claritas (talk) 17:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

RfD nomination of FWSE

I have nominated FWSE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Claritas (talk) 20:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could add some text...

You raised a great point at the medicine talk page. Yeah, currently, I only want to tag redirects for disease synonyms found in the list of cutaneous conditions. This is not to say that someday we will not also tag other types I redirects, but that is where I am starting. With that being said, would you consider adding some text to the relevant sections at WP:DERM:A about which articles and redirects should be tagged? Regardless, thanks again for all your help in the past! ---kilbad (talk) 00:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Let me think it over for a few days.

Are the ones you want to tag pretty consistently marked with {{R from alternative name}}? That could be used by a bot to find the ones you want to tag. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks... and unfortunately, I just started using that template the last few months... so many of the pertinent redirects do not have that template. ---128.248.202.31 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC).

suggestion

Hi. It seems special education is vandalized regularly, and I'm thinking it should be protected. Can you do that? Thanks, JS. Jim Steele (talk) 16:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't do it, but anyone can request it by posting a note at WP:RFPP (ask for semi-protection). I'm not sure that it will be approved, though. It's only been vandalized about four times in the last month, which isn't much. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Why does everyone assume you are an admin? (Including me at times!) :) Do want me to nominate you? Or is that a dumb question...? --Jubilee♫clipman 19:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes WAID I also think you would make a great admin and would support this nomination.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Asking formally

Would you like to be an admin? I will nominate you, if so (even though the procedure looks somewhat scary!) --Jubilee♫clipman 02:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Now I get it

You wrote "The same can be said, BTW, for Noah Webster's works". Suddenly I understand why we have so many spelling issues with WP:ENGVAR :-) LeadSongDog come howl! 21:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I want to say that I am extremely grateful for your reply at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Self-published. So far, you seem to be the only editor who believes that a press release (e.g., from BP about their oil spill, on their own website) is self-published.

Fundamentally, I think people have got their wires crossed: WP:SPS warns about the reliability of self-published sources. So what's a self-published source? Why, it's whatever seems unreliable to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Jessica

Jessica wanted me to move the most recent SPI page you made at here for Dieudonne Carrington isnt actually posted on the SPI page. Either under pending or awaiting admin approval . I guess the bot is down or something? But its not on the pending approval page or anything. So if you could fix that, i dont feel like learning the new system (used checkuser, havent learned SPI formatting). She keeps asking me about opening up a ANI discussion for her too :sigh:. Anyway have a nice day. MrMacMan ^Talk 01:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)