User talk:WhatamIdoing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

If you expected a reply on another page and didn't get it, then please feel free to remind me. I've given up on my watchlist. You can also use the magic summoning tool if you remember to link my userpage in the same edit in which you sign the message.

Please add notes to the end of this page. If you notice the page size getting out of control (>100,000 bytes), then please complain at me. I'll probably reply here unless you suggest another page for a reply. Thanks, WhatamIdoing

Contents

Precious anniversary[edit]

Three years ago ...
Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
magic tools
... you were recipient
no. 584 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Especially precious: your explanation of what an infobox does for people such as vision-impaired, dyslexic, struggling with English and others, who are all readers, - summary "Perhaps we should spend more time thinking about our average reader, rather than our ideal one.". If you don't mind I would like to quote it on the cabal's page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:52, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

You may quote it on any wiki page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 10:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

thank you[edit]

thank you WAID,[1] sometimes it might go "unsaid" by me, but you make a great difference (because of your humanity),,,,,oz--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:53, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

In case you find interest[edit]

Hello WhatamIdoing. We recently participated in a discussion which motivated my filing of an Arbcom request. Although you are not a named party, your interest in the RFC mentioned juxtaposes to potential interest in the Arbcom request as well. I am therefore, inviting you to consider your own interest in the matter, and welcoming your involvement should you find it desirous. Best--John Cline (talk) 17:24, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

AfC[edit]

Re: "I recently ran across an AFC volunteer who was telling editors that non-independent sources, e.g., an "About our staff" webpage used to support the name of a CEO, were never permitted on Wikipedia. I should follow up to see whether he understood the message that I left him." (in an unrelated VP discussion) - Please see this and discussion here. I have encountered many similar cases. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. I'll look at them later. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:32, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Got an email[edit]

Got an email today (now hiding my email because of this) ...As i dont want to be involved with this problem. Someone is asking me why all these are being removed. My reply was straight forward....i said they need to bring this up on each talk page...they replied they dont want to be involved with this editor because of pass problems. I when on to explain there is no need for the boxes in such small articles so there really is no need to talk things out. I think we should just keep an eye-out on the articles just in cases there is a problem.....i have no interest in the articles in question ...but think there may be a problem if the person that emailed me does not take my advice to let it be. -- Moxy (talk) 18:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

It looks like a serious drama fest is underway on Noël Coward.
I'm thinking about the larger systemic problem of INFOBOX's scrupulously neutral approach: "neither required nor prohibited" or something. (*short pause*) Yes, that's the exact language; I added it back in 2011. I'm starting to think that this language is not as helpful as some alternatives might be. Partly as a result of this, we're pretty much getting the same couple of people having the same fight over and over. Do you think that, if it were put to a vote, that the community would specify a (slight) preference one way or the other, at least for certain kinds of articles (e.g., article longer than a stub/not FA/about a person/whatever)?
Alternatively, we could consider TBANning anyone who has appeared in infobox discussions more than, say, once a month. While I think that might raise the average civility of the comments, I don't think that would have the effect of preventing some valuable editors (mostly on the DISINFOBOX side) from burning out. I think it would just change the reason for losing them from "burned out in infobox battles" to "said meatball:GoodBye when banned from talking about infoboxes in articles that are important to them". I'd like to keep these editors and stop the drain on them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:05, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Poor guys same people again in the same problem. There needs to be some sort of solution here. I am going to look more into research about the boxes. Thus far many studies have been show on how people use the internet, but because they do not mention boxes per say thoses opposes to boxes tend ignore them. I am going to look for specific studies on this by different aspects of the boxes.. like - How the structure of Wikipedia articles influences user navigation and IADIS International , Volume: 2010 (2010). "Languages and Wikipedia: Cultural evolution increases structure (PDF Download Available)". Retrieved August 16, 2016. . We should also look at problems raised by those that dont like them ...for instance the huge amount of wikicode of an infobox at the top of a page "may" discourages editing.....could this not be solve by the infoboxe being at the bottom and simply trascluded to the top. I think before any community wide RfC we should have some data to present for each side and have proposed solutions for problems like wikicode. Will get back to you on this in a bit. -- Moxy (talk) 15:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Dame ...i see things got blow out of proportion anyways Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Cassianto purging infoboxes and the information they contain and telling people to "fuck off" . -- Moxy (talk) 18:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Have you followed any of this? I saw that the ANI discussion went nowhere fast, but I lost the thread afterwards. WhatamIdoing (talk) 12:36, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Went down hill fast see Jimbo Wales' talk page.....then we now have User:Cassianto to be topic ban. Just as you stated...they are trying to burn him out. To bad hes a good writer - just bad interaction skills.--Moxy (talk) 21:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the update. I wonder what the result of the latest ANI discussion will be.
What do you think about Gerda's idea of a two-comment limit per discussion? Do you think it could be usefully applied to all of the "regulars" in these discussions? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Intersex[edit]

Hi there, the non MEDRS brain sex claims are back on the intersex page again, posted by the same user. Trankuility (talk) 22:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Old talk page discussion[edit]

Greetings. A discussion that you were previously involved in at Template talk:Third-party § Wording has new comments. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 19:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

You have restored my faith in the capacity to have well explained responses to things. I do really think that the maritime mess is a brilliant example where all the well intentioned principles have failed though, over the 10 years. cheers and thanks for the response, if we ever meet in real life. remind I owe your a beer/coffee whatever. cheers JarrahTree 06:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome.
I've not see the ships/ports/etc. groups recently. I keep hoping that {{infobox ship}} will join the modern age (presumably Lua can handle the template's complex needs, and a bot could make the adjustments in the articles automatically), but I've had little contact with the groups working in that area.
That said, as a general rule of thumb (that certainly does not apply universally), bigger groups are more successful. A large group is more likely to have the resources it needs within the group (which reinforces group interaction) and more likely to keep operating over time (because the loss of a couple of editors is not the end of the group). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
you have compelling arguments about the social nature, and the size thing, I suppose I am quite old fashioned in the hope that the whole range of projects that get 'labelled' dead, moribund, and inactive are always 'resurrectable' in some way and allowed the chance to recover, I know that a few have tried to try to increase participation in some projects, and some projects have in fact been resurrected simply by new people coming along. However, I respect the way you have explained, thanks for that JarrahTree 07:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
If you run across anyone who is trying to revive a project, or have any ideas, then please point them to WP:REVIVE. I'm trying to collect all the advice on how to do that in one place, in the hope that more people will find it, apply it, and be successful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
I think terminology and ascribing status to a project and participants is something that needs to be re-thought, will try to enunciate later JarrahTree 01:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC).
I'm happy to hear your thoughts whenever you have time. But I have been thinking about this, and I think that there's one valid reason to provide some sort of status to a WikiProject: The WikiProject banner templates encourage people to ask questions on the group's talk page. If you go to the project to ask a question, it's useful to know whether you should expect a reply. Very experienced editors like us can see the signs of an abandoned page just as easily as we could see the signs of a long-abandoned house, of course, but someone with only 10 or 100 edits will probably not and will be disappointed at the lack of reply. So I think that some sort of system to identify when you'll probably get a reply and when you'll probably not (because "nobody's home") would be helpful. (I don't care what that system is or what it's called.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 13:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
yeah I wish it was as simple as that. years ago people used to leave questions on talk pages of categories that were never answered (that wasnt even project space). I do not believe a project should be evaluated on whether someone turns up to answer a queation on a talk page of a project. Too simplistic. Anyways, it is not as if any one ed is going to solve the issues that surround project quietness and the varied responses to quietness, in the short term. JarrahTree 22:19, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
You are quite right. We should not really hope for a solution. I'm hopeful that we could come up with a slightly less confusing explanation of it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Your understanding of BRD policy[edit]

Hi WhatamIdoing,
Another user and I have gotten into a bit of a disagreement about the intention of BRD policy. It has reached the point where the other user created an administrative incident report out of it here. This other user and I are simply deadlocked in our disagreement about what BRD is supposed to be. I have noticed that you have made the last major edit to the BRD policy page, and that you are still actively editing WP to this day. I was wondering if you might be able to help us both to better understand the intention of BRD by commenting on our little administrative incident report, so that we might both be able to better understand its intended purpose?
Thanks kindly,
Scott P. (talk) 00:52, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I have replied at WP:ANEW.
In the future (warning: pet peeve ahead), please avoid calling BRD a "policy". When inexperienced editors see someone with thousands of edits (like us) saying that something is a policy, then they think that it's mandatory. And that can lead to expectations that re-reversions should be met with blocks, and mistaking very typical content disputes for edit wars.
Good luck. If this isn't resolved in the next week, then you will probably need to either move on to a new article or start an RFC. (If you do an RFC, then you might consider the "pro/con" format. I recommend putting the question and date stamp before the table, rather than trying to get the bot to copy it. The bot's handling of complex formatting like tables is a bit brittle.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 09:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-36[edit]

17:12, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Impact[edit]

Impact
Cherry crashing into primordial Earth2.png
Thank you for your impact
in explaining gently
why different readers should
be offered the same information
in different ways!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:05, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

As said above, I included it in the related project talk of QAI. DYK that its talk is up for deletion? And I thought the infobox wars were over ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Gerda, have you ever read Wikipedia:Canvassing? generally considered disruptive behavior... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:31, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, please don't comment there. Stay away from the topic, ignore that it exists. I only meant to ask if you know how [insert polite word] ... it is. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I've always wondered why that list is considered some sort of "hit list" rather than a "stay away" list. A sensible use for it would be to warn people against trying to add infoboxes to pages where they've previously been removed and discussed. So many articles on this wiki where an infobox would be welcomed, or at least ignored...
Well, if you're all going to drop by, then perhaps you can help me remember the name of the thing that I want. What's lenticular printing when it isn't exactly that? I'm thinking of a building with a zig-zag or corrugated surface, and you paint the "left" half of the ridges white and the "right" half of the ridges black, and then (if you're a properly enculturated English Wikipedian) have an argument over the One True™ color of the building, depending upon which angle you're viewing the building from.
And, yes, I'm aware that this would make a lovely metaphor for something about infoboxes, but I actually saw a photo of such a building in an art gallery this afternoon, so this is actually an innocent question in the hope that I'll be able to sleep tonight instead of racking my brains for the name. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
We all need to stay away from it and focus on what is important I think. I'd happily go the rest of the year without a single mention of an infobox. It's kind of a non issue, there's so many more important things on here! If Gerda could go a single week without mentioning one I'd be extremely surprised!♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:13, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Self-reporting[edit]

Hi, Regarding your remark about self-reporting [10], I was unable to find the policy. Could you help out and give me a link? --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

The best explanation is probably in WP:EGRS. (Something to keep in mind with that page is that all the subjects on the page are basically treated the same, even though an illuminating example or a useful part of the explanation may be elsewhere.)
Also, by "policy" I meant "what the community actually does in practice", not "what's currently written on a page with the policy template on it". WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:32, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-37[edit]

18:04, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Re: Candy bar[edit]

Hello! A number of edits have been made on the section that you marked as requiring copy editing, some by me. If you found the time to review it and provide additional suggestions on the talk page or tags, that would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for the work you have already done on that article and many others. 64.72.65.120 (talk) 04:17, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on that. I haven't reviewed every change in detail, but the ones I've seen look good. You can remove outdated tags yourself, by the way, and if you think that problem is solved, then I encourage you to do so. Only a few tags should be left in place (most notably, the WP:Articles for deletion tags, because that deletion discussion will continue even if someone removes the tag from the article). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:32, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-38[edit]

22:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

NPP & AfC[edit]

After 5 years of unstructured discussion since ACTRIAL, a dedicated venue has been created for combined discussion about NPP & AfC where a work group is also being composed to develop recommendations for necessary changes to policies and related software. It is 'not an RfC, it is a call for genuinely interested users who have significant experience in these areas to join a truly proactive work group. There is some reading to be done before signing up. See: Wikipedia:The future of NPP and AfC. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:55, 24 September 2016

Intersex surgery[edit]

Hi there, a couple of weeks ago, you commented as part of the discussion on renaming this page, "There might be some value in pausing this discussion, re-writing the page properly, and then re-discussing the ideal page title". I am interested in finding out what, specifically, you mean by this? I am not entirely happy with the page in its current form (amongst other things, the surgical content still reads one-sided to me, a fact that I accept in part because of the additions relating to human rights and lack of clinical consensus), and the consequences of surgery still typically focus on immediate post-surgical issues, rather than longer term consequences of anatomical changes. But I also want to reduce the content on the Intersex page, consolidating some of the material on Intersex surgery. I would appreciate any thoughts or insights you have, now that the current name change proposal has lapsed due to a lack of consensus. Thank you. Trankuility (talk) 14:48, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Trankuility!
I think that the current state is that you get to re-write the "surgery" page however you'd like, and then we'll come up with a decent title afterwards. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-39[edit]

18:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Check[edit]

Hi, you might be interested in this discussion as you provide arguments for the last one. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 10:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-40[edit]

21:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-41[edit]

20:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Editing News #3—2016[edit]

Read this in another languageSubscription list for this multilingual newsletterSubscribe or unsubscribe on the English Wikipedia

VisualEditor-logo.svg
Did you know?

Did you know that you can easily re-arrange columns and rows in the visual editor?

Screenshot showing a dropdown menu with options for editing the table structure

Select a cell in the column or row that you want to move. Click the arrow at the start of that row or column to open the dropdown menu (shown). Choose either "Move before" or "Move after" to move the column, or "Move above" or "Move below" to move the row.

You can read and help translate the user guide, which has more information about how to use the visual editor.

Since the last newsletter, the VisualEditor Team has mainly worked on a new wikitext editor. They have also released some small features and the new map editing tool. Their workboard is available in Phabricator. You can find links to the list of work finished each week at mw:VisualEditor/Weekly triage meetings. Their current priorities are fixing bugs, releasing the 2017 wikitext editor as a beta feature, and improving language support.

Recent changes[edit]

  • You can now set text as small or big.[34]
  • Invisible templates have been shown as a puzzle icon. Now, the name of the invisible template is displayed next to the puzzle icon.[35] A similar feature will display the first part of hidden HTML comments.[36]
  • Categories are displayed at the bottom of each page. If you click on the categories, the dialog for editing categories will open.[37]
  • At many wikis, you can now add maps to pages. Go to the Insert menu and choose the "Maps" item. The Discovery department are adding more features to this area, like geoshapes. You can read more on MediaWiki.org.[38]
  • The "Save" button now says "Save page" when you create a page, and "Save changes" when you change an existing page.[39] In the future, the "Save page" button will say "Publish page". This will affect both the visual and wikitext editing systems. More information is available on Meta.
  • Image galleries now use a visual mode for editing. You can see thumbnails of the images, add new files, remove unwanted images, rearrange the images by dragging and dropping, and add captions for each image. Use the "Options" tab to set the gallery's display mode, image sizes, and add a title for the gallery.[40]

Future changes[edit]

The visual editor will be offered to all editors at the remaining 10 "Phase 6" Wikipedias during the next month. The developers want to know whether typing in your language feels natural in the visual editor. Please post your comments and the language(s) that you tested at the feedback thread on mediawiki.org. This will affect several languages, including Thai, Burmese and Aramaic.

The team is working on a modern wikitext editor. The 2017 wikitext editor will look like the visual editor and be able to use the citoid service and other modern tools. This new editing system may become available as a Beta Feature on desktop devices in October 2016. You can read about this project in a general status update on the Wikimedia mailing list.

Let's work together[edit]

Do you teach new editors how to use the visual editor? Did you help set up the Citoid automatic reference feature for your wiki? Have you written or imported TemplateData for your most important citation templates? Would you be willing to help new editors and small communities with the visual editor? Please sign up for the new VisualEditor Community Taskforce.

If you aren't reading this in your preferred language, then please help us with translations! Subscribe to the Translators mailing list or contact us directly, so that we can notify you when the next issue is ready. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-42[edit]

16:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-43[edit]

17:39, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-44[edit]

16:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-45[edit]

23:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-46[edit]

19:18, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

The New York Times (New York) listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The New York Times (New York). Since you had some involvement with the The New York Times (New York) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 08:33, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-47[edit]

15:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, WhatamIdoing. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Old ad hom[edit]

Hello WhatamIdoing, a few years ago you said, on a talk page about a sourcing guideline for articles classed as medical, in response to a point of mine about it appearing to reword core NPOV guidelines, "EverSince, I know that you're heavily involved in anti-psychiatry issues, but even in psychiatry, most of the "reliable sources on the subject" have been written by the "experts in the field," particularly when we're talking about basic medical/scientific facts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)" I know it's a long time later (though other comments have been made since) but could you clarify what you mean by that? Replying here would be fine. Eversync (talk) 02:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I have no memory of the conversation. From the thread there, I assume that I objected to your implicit claim that most, or at least a substantial minority of, sources that are reliable for statements about a medical question (such as psychiatry) would be written by people who are not (in some way) experts in the subject at hand. When the question is technical, non-experts are mostly non-reliable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
But there was no implicit claim of that - only if you equate 'expert' to mean 'with a medical degree'? In the mental health field there are practitioners and researchers with doctorates in clinical psychology, counselling psychology, sociology, cognitive neuroscience, evolutionary biology etc etc? This point of indisputable fact is never acknowledged by the doctors on Wikipedia. Moreover, you seemed to be trying to imply something by 'heavily involved in antipsychiatry', and made similar points after that, are you prepared to clarify what is it that you perceive? Eversync (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I perceive that you know more than the typical editor about the 'who is an expert' fight that surrounds anti-psychiatry articles.
  • I don't equate having a medical degree with being an expert. When the question is technical (e.g., rather than social or humanitarian), I think that a reasonable first approximation of "being an expert" looks like "being an established academic researcher". So if, for example, the question is whether people with a given diagnosis are more or less likely to engage in recreational drug use, 'the expert' is the person with a PhD in statistics and a series of publications on the subject, not the M.D. with an opinion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-48[edit]

21:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-49[edit]

18:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy Holidays![edit]

WAID, Happy Holidays/New Year!--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-50[edit]

19:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Good work on the article American Time Use Survey Devopam (talk) 11:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Those thanks belong to User:Joeykai, who expanded it yesterday. Since it's new, it could be sent to WP:DYK and run on the main page.
Joey, if you're looking for ways to even further expand the page, then I think there's room in that article for some of the interesting results (for example, it documents the amount of non-studying done by some college students[84][85], but a news search for "cool facts" would probably find something that appeals to you) and some of the practical uses by businesses (e.g., human resources issues or marketing and product planning) might be good areas for expansion. Every time they publish a new report, there are news stories on parenting and housework differences by gender[86][87], on sleep[88][89] and income differences[90][91]. And thanks for your work on this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:56, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

VE issue[edit]

Hey WAID

So when one edits a reference with VE it moves a bunch of stuff around, adds empty parameters, and adds quotes around the ref name such as is seen here[92].

Anything we can do to get it to stop doing this?

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:43, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Doc James,
  • It's not supposed to be re-arranging things – usually – but we've got a bug open, and they haven't figured out what's causing it. The effective priority on that bug is "this will be fixed absolutely immediately, just as soon as we figure out what to fix".
  • Adding empty parameters is The Right Thing™ overall. The idea is that empty parameters encourage people to fill them in. So if the TemplateData marks |last= (or whatever) as a recommended field, then it will be added. However, that generally helpful behavior is not helpful in the example you've linked. A future version of TemplateData, which will give us a way to say that |last= is basically the same as |vauthors=, will solve that problem.
  • The quotations are supposed to be used on ref names, even if there are no spaces. It (currently) works without the quotations, but it's a (very) tiny performance issue. So they aren't going to break/change that.
Thanks for this note. I'm always interested in hearing what people think and what problems they're running into. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks I prefer no quotes. A couple of accounts just got blocked for adding them including this one on Dec 13, 2016[93]
So unless their is clear consensus than VE should not be doing it either IMO. Or at least not automatically. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:10, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
I have no idea why the bot was blocked, nor whether that block was warranted. But it would certainly depend upon the details: adding it while doing nothing else would violate WP:COSMETICBOT; cleaning up a trivial syntax error while editing that exact line anyway is always acceptable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:03, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Best wishes for the holidays...[edit]

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

Tech News: 2016-51[edit]

20:33, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Looking for help with an EDP[edit]

You asked to be pinged if anyone was interested in the non-free content issue. I have been trying for months to get help on this subject on Meta. See:

We have a very small community, and the few really competent Ladino speakers do not have time to write an EDP in Ladino. But I think I can get them to translate one if we have one in English. All I'm really looking to do here is to apply the policy from English Wikipedia to Ladino Wikipedia. (Caveat: Ladino is, of course, no country's main language. But based on the location of Ladino speakers, it's possible that Israeli or Turkish law might have to be taken into consideration. I'm no expert on that.)

Can you help me (or get me some help)? (Also, please let me know if I should have addressed this to your WMF username.) Thanks in advance. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:04, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy to help with this as a volunteer. I'm not very familiar with EDPs myself, so let's see if we can get some more help. User:LX certainly knows more than me about this issue. I believe that User:Masem and User:Hammersoft are very familiar with the enwiki policy, so they may be able to help you figure out which parts are essential and which are merely local process. (Also, are you sure that you want to do this at all? It's not a small amount of work.)
In terms of models, have you compared the enwiki policy against the Hebrew and Turkish policies, to see what might need to be adapted?
In terms of necessary process, how does the Ladino Wikipedia currently handle policy discussions? You'll want to make sure that editors have a good opportunity to comment and revise the document.
In terms of making it happen, I suggest that you build this in a sandbox. A sandbox is a great place for making progress, and if you don't boldly start somehow, then it may never happen. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:45, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for getting back to me.
  1. No, I'm not sure I really want to do it. I've been getting away with simply explaining that "we're using enwiki's EDP" for a while, and if I could keep doing that I would. But I'm not sure I'm going to be able to keep doing that. Why not just go for zero media files, then? I don't know, really. More than anything else, I guess, because I think everything we have is allowable under fair use, so I'd like to keep it around.
  2. I do not speak Turkish at all, and my Hebrew is probably not good enough to handle the Hebrew policy. Based on a quick, Google-translated copy of each, I suspect the US version is the most restrictive of the three.
  3. Community rarely exists as a real community; we have editors who periodically drop by. I usually post a notice to our Community Portal, in English (or English, Hebrew and Spanish), and if I hear no complaints in 7-14 days I assume there are no objections.
  4. I will undoubtedly build this in English, then have someone translate (I hope). I want the absolute, positive, minimum policy document necessary. We have sysop-only upload and don't plan to change that.
Thanks to all for your help. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:05, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Ok, first; are you fluent in Ladino? Second, whether something is fair use or not isn't a criterion under our EDP. If we allowed fair use, we'd have literally millions more images here. Our EDP deliberately restricts non-free media files to only those that are crucial to our purpose. Another thing to consider; some language wikis do not allow non-free media files at all. This can work. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:21, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not fluent in Ladino at all. But I'm around much more than the sysops who are. That's why I propose writing it in English, after which they will translate.
  • And I meant "fair use" as a bit of a sloppy shortcut. Leaving out documentation, I think that we're actually following the enwiki rules reasonably well. We have 24 images that are low-res logos or national/municipal emblems and one movie poster. They are only used on the pages they illustrate. And we have no unused files. (We also have two photographs that one of my other sysops believes he took himself, but I haven't wanted to push them over to Commons yet.) See lad:Special:ListFiles. Since becoming a sysop a bit over a year ago, I've replaced some images that were removed from Commons. I haven't added anything else new, and uploading is now restricted to sysops.
  • Finally, as long as I have some help, I'm willing to create a page at ladwiki to continue the discussion so that we don't keep lengthening WhatamIdoing's talk page. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:45, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

StevenJ81: Just thought I'd add my two cents' worth, since I got pinged. WhatamIdoing mentioned this is no small amount of work, but I don't think it has to be that bad. Translating the English Wikipedia's full non-free content guidelines would be a lot of work, but all you really need to meet the requirements is the core non-free content criteria and a machine-readable way to identify fair use content. For the latter, I'd suggest transferring and translating {{Non-free fair use}} and {{Non-free use rationale}}. That's really all you need to be able to be compliant with respect to non-free content.

You'll also want to decide on whether or not to host free content, and I'd recommend against it. If you do decide to host free content, it must have source, authorship and licensing information. Files that don't have that and which won't be covered by any acceptable EDP, such as lad:File:Betahayim marrakesh.jpg and lad:File:Esnoga de marrakesh.jpg, will have to be deleted. (The first one is taken from https://www.flickr.com/photos/87762368@N00/2625423666 and should just be uploaded to Commons in full resolution with proper information, and the second seems to be a copyright violation from The Jerusalem Post.) LX (talk, contribs) 21:14, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, LX. That's really, really helpful. WRT non-free content, if we take this forward, we're certainly not going to do any more than is absolutely necessary; we just don't have the manpower to do so. Question for you (or anyone else watching): If I imported the enwiki policy and templates and used them as is, in English, ad interim, until someone can translate them, do you suppose the Foundation would find that a satisfactory short-term approach? Or will they say that on ladwiki, it's not valid until it's in Ladino? (FWIW, Creative Commons is not available in Ladino; when my language is set to Ladino, I get the Spanish version, which is the fallback in our language cascade.)
As for free content, I generally wasn't planning to host locally—and given the availability of Commons, there's generally no need to. In the case of the photographs, I had an impression, though not necessarily a strong one, that one of our users had taken both of those photographs. Because the proof wasn't strong, I was going to host the pictures locally rather than on Commons. But under the circumstances, I'm guessing you're right about the two pictures, so I should delete one and move the other to Commons as appropriate. (You'll have to teach me sometime how you figured that out!) And then there are no more free media left. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:37, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
StevenJ81: I think English should be fine as a start; it would at least be an improvement on the current situation, and it's better to do it now rather than later when you have hundreds of files or more to write rationales for. (I found the sources of those files by dropping them into Tineye and Google Image Search.) LX (talk, contribs) 21:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
LX, thanks for this.
Perhaps this is a crazy idea, but do you think it would be okay to say that their EDP is the English Wikipedia's policy? Without importing anything (although the idea of copying just those two sounds good to me) – just "Ladino Wikipedia Policy: Our policy is that you have to comply with the English Wikipedia's policies (whatever they happen to say today)".
StevenJ81, I don't truly mind if you take over my talk page for this. Don't worry about that. One thought for you: If uploads are sysop-only and free content is not permitted (I think you have sound reasons for that position), then I think you also want to document that in a policy. It should take only a very brief sentence or two to tell people that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks to all. I'm going to go forward as follows:
  • I'm going to create a page to house a draft at ladwiki. (I'll add the link here as soon as I have it.) In effect, it will be a sandbox, since nothing exists yet. The draft is going to say that the English Wikipedia policy applies in full, except as modified on that page—and that the English version will be definitive, because it will be maintained and updated.
  • The main exceptions will be around (a) no free media, (b) sysop upload only, and that (c) although enwiki policy will apply, items believed to be under copyright in Israel or Turkey, even if in the public domain in the US, will be considered "not-free" for the purpose of ladwiki.
  • Once I'm finished drafting, I will put up a notice on our VP with a 30-day comment period.
I invite anyone to come over and comment there.
Finally, LX, watch for a ping to the talk page of the synagogue photo. I'm thinking JPost may have taken the picture from here, rather than vice versa. You'll see my reasoning there. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Status of Thursday morning 22 December. Good morning, all. Please see the page lad:Vikipedya:Exemption Doctrine Policy/en for my draft policy. Suggestions are welcome.
Additionally, I found substitutes for two of my logos on Commons, so deleted the local files. And I moved the cemetery picture to Commons, and deleted it locally. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
I like it. It looks like a solid start to a low-maintenance effort.
I suggest that you change the word "Upload files" to {{int:upload}}. This code will automatically translate that phrase into whatever language the user has set in their preferences, which means that it's guaranteed to match the exact label for that link in the sidebar. (It will say "Upload file" for you here.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:52, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much, WhatamIdoing. (And your suggestion was very helpful.) I need low maintenance, so I hope this will work. Do I have to get someone from WMF to sign off on it in the end? StevenJ81 (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't think that you have to get anyone (except the local community) to approve it. User:Nemo bis might know for certain, but I think that it's just a matter of the community approving the policy (and the sysops continuing to enforce it). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:40, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Update and request for help 11 January 2017[edit]

@LX, Hammersoft, and WhatamIdoing: Update: About halfway through the comment period now, no comments.
Separately, I ported over three templates ({{Non-free fair use}}, {{Non-free use rationale}}, {{Non-free use rationale logo}}), along with two infrastructure templates ({{Non-free media}}, {{File other}}). I've placed them at lad:File:El Al logo.jpg and lad:Hatuna meuheret.jpg. So far, so good, but they have created one red category whose creation I don't understand, and they failed to inhibit a different red category that I assumed would go away when I added the templates. So if anyone can further help me with that I'd appreciate it. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

If memory serves, @Guillom: knows a lot about how those templates work because they set up machine-readable information and bot-used categories. Guillom, can you please take a look when you have a little bit of time? This is not an emergency, so whenever it works out would be great. I know this is kind of a crazy week for you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! StevenJ81 (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Update 1 February 2017[edit]

Thanks to all for your assistance. There were no comments at all through January, so I have published this as being adopted as policy. It will take me a few more days to get all of the images properly documented, but I think we're in good shape now. (@Guillom, I'd still appreciate help in managing the maintenance categories, if you can.) StevenJ81 (talk) 16:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. Good luck! WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
StevenJ81: I apologize for not responding sooner; I have limited time at the moment. The categories indicate that the license templates don't emit specific markers that are used by the software to read the copyright status of the images. Could you take a look at m:File metadata cleanup drive/How to fix metadata (last section: Add machine-readable markers to copyright templates) and see if that can get you going? See also examples of similar edits I made here on the English Wikipedia. If you get stuck, let me know and I can take a closer look. I hope this helps. guillom 18:56, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
guillom Thanks. I'll have a look. I didn't even remotely know where to start. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Update 1 March 2017[edit]

I want to close this out so that User:WhatamIdoing, who so graciously hosted this discussion, can close it and archive it. I just deleted the last file of questionable provenance on ladwiki, so we're now completely in compliance.

As far as the metadata goes, importantly the category showing that all license/copyright issues are accounted for (one way or the other) is also correct. Some of the other metadata (like author data) isn't, but for these purposes I'm far less worried about that. Thanks to all for your assistance. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations to you and ladwiki. It's an achievement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Famous web search engine[edit]

A tag has been placed on Famous web search engine requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Oliverrushton (talk) 19:46, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho[edit]

Merry, merry![edit]

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:43, 25 December 2016 (UTC) Lights ablaze.JPG

January 2017 at Women in Red[edit]

Franz Joseph Spiegler (Umkreis) Anna lehrt Maria das Lesen.jpg
Woman teaching geometry.jpg


January 2017

Women Philosophers & Women in Education online editathons
Faciliated by Women in Red

Women in Red logo.svg

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Ipigott (talk) 11:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Special Barnstar Hires.png The Special Barnstar
For your patience in explaining clearly and without rancor the lack of automatic technical or artistic superiority of one method of capturing a human image over another. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:26, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


Educational credentials?[edit]

As a top contributor to medical-related articles on Wikipedia, I was curious as to what your credentials are. Do you have a medical doctorate?2601:285:201:F6F0:1032:1E72:4174:E76B (talk) 01:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I have the most important credentials for being a Wikipedia editor: I'm curious, and I read. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, WhatamIdoing![edit]

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

Accuracy and precision[edit]

you should really read articles, before linking them into a discussion.

Lx 121 (talk) 20:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

i'm not even going to bother explaining what-all is wrong with your "colour thesis"; but try reading wp:accuracy, wp:npov, & maybe some articles on the physics of colours, human visual perception, the subjectivity of art, & the colour-decay of paint-pigments for a start.

then explain to me how you can prove that painting-x, by artist-y:

a) wasintended to accurately reproduce exactly the colours of the subject, clothing, scene; rather than just "making it look nice.

b) that artist-x did so with your cited "colour of money" level of precision (& btw american money is not exactly a polychromatic wonder.

&

c) that the colours have not decayed over time.

then come up with your rationale for why it is ok to go with the pretty, heroic paintings of people that you "like", such as american presidents; but not for "bad people", like hitler, stalin, lenin, mao, saddam hussein, & the kims of north korea?

or if you want to limit it to b&w photography; hitler, lenin, stalin, mussolini, etc. & the 1st 1 or 2 kims of n.k.

because all of them have nice, pretty, heroic paintings, that show them "at their prime" & in "full colour".

so according to your thesis, & on the princple of npov, surely their "official portraits" should be given lede as well?

& your nice little comment about blocking me because you don't like how i format my talkpage comments rather nicely demonstrates what is wrong with vaguely-worded wikipedia policies, thanks.

Lx 121 (talk) 21:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Let's make a list:
  • I probably don't need to "read" WP:V and WP:NPOV to answer your question, since I've helped "write" those policies for years. You may wish to read WP:V, though. You might particularly want to notice that the policy you keep naming as "accuracy" does not require accuracy. It requires that something be "verifiable" in some non-Wikipedia source. A painting that a reliable website labels as "This is a painting of John Calhoun" fully complies with that policy.
  • You, on the other hand, may wish to read about Realism (arts), which is particularly relevant for discussions about paintings made in the latter half of the 19th century.
  • I don't need to prove that a realistic painting had phenomenal accuracy in color. What matters is whether it's better than the existing alternatives, not whether it's perfect.
    • OTOH, I have conclusively demonstrated that modern color photography does not always provide the level of color accuracy that you have asserted. Reasonable people, if shown one or the other of those varying colors of the same photo of Jimmy Carter, might come to different conclusions about whether his jacket was bright blue or nearly black. Therefore, your assertion that photos are always "accurate" seems pretty much like garbage to me.
  • I've never said that the bios of "bad people" should be treated any differently from "people that you like". That's a difference of NPOV rather than accuracy. I've only asked you to explain how a portrait in the realism school is "inaccurate".

You've so far made a decent case for suggesting that all "heroic" portraits, regardless of medium, being somewhat non-neutral/overly flattering. But you've not convinced me that photographs are always accurate (even if we don't know anything about the photo's creation or manipulation), and you've not convinced me that paintings are always inaccurate (especially when we have a source that says it's in the realism school). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:V[edit]

Hey, I've replied to you at WP:V correcting your misconceptions about the sources at the Jacob Barnett article. It would be helpful if you acknowledged those there, rather than plowing ahead in the article under discussion as if there were consensus to implement these changes. I have added references to secondary sources, with a quotation, containing the exact phrase "This video does not exist." I assume this satisfies your WP:V objection that there are no such secondary sources. And fwiw, the existence of the article in question is rests mostly on the fact that sometimes "child posts video on the internet" can be a sufficient condition for notability under our guidelines. There have been two AfDs where this was established to the community's sayisfaction, however we might disagree with the conclusion. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. Also, I know that WP:Secondary does not mean independent. There are independent sources that say that a particular URL isn't working; there are no secondary sources that say this. (A secondary source transforms previously published facts into a new intellectual product, e.g., by providing analysis, context, or commentary on the simple fact).
However, you have no sources that say that the video is not available anywhere at all. And you definitely don't have any source indicating that routine events, such as kids' videos disappearing from YouTube, is WP:DUE.
See, e.g., the discussion at WT:V and elsewhere over this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
The OP at WT:V is the one that suggested the current wording of "no longer available". I definitely don't get the sense that there is consensus to remove the statement from the article. However, you seem to have misquoted the article in the course of that discussion. I don't think that's entirely constructive. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-02[edit]

19:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I added to your RSN comment[edit]

[102][103] Just so you know. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 01:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Announcements[edit]

I see you found the announcements page. Feel free to promote WPMED-related activities there if you want to. It's a nifty feature that could do with more use. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 21:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it's going to get the attention of experienced editors. Changes don't show in the diff for WT:MED. That's how I read that page, and I assume that I'm not the only one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment: transgender and intersex task forces[edit]

Hi WhatamIdoing. Funcrunch has proposed creating a transgender/nonbinary task force, and I thought it might be an opportunity to create a small intersex task force as well. Would you be interested in commenting? Thanks! Trankuility (talk) 03:46, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-03[edit]

23:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-04[edit]

20:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-05[edit]

18:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you![edit]

Meissen-teacup pinkrose01.jpg Thank you for the suggestions! Jackiekoerner (talk) 00:59, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-06[edit]

19:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Addition of un-redirected pages to Special:NewPages and Special:NewPagesFeed[edit]

I'm contacting you because you participated in this proposal discussion. While the proposal was approved, it has not received developer action. The request is now under consideration as part of the 2017 Developer Wishlist, with voting open through the end of day on Tuesday (23:59 UTC). The latter link describes the voting process, if you are interested. —swpbT 18:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-07[edit]

18:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-08[edit]

19:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Medicine predictions for Start-class articles[edit]

Hello! Back in November we had a quick discussion (here) about creating a table similar to m:Research:Screening WikiProject Medicine articles for quality/Stub prediction table, but for Start-class articles. I've now written a tool that makes that job easy. Do you have a particular place you want me to create the table? Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 01:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Nettrom, I was just recommending your work to someone a couple of hours ago.
I think that anything in the WP:MED "namespace" is likely to be a good place for this kind of information. Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Assessment/Articles to re-classify, maybe? And thanks! WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree that creating is as a subpage of WP:MED is a good idea, and the proposed page seemed like a good place to put the list, so I went ahead and created it. Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Background on advertising the WikiProject Medicine app[edit]

Regarding our interaction here: I attempted to provide some context here. Best Regards, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 07:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-09[edit]

19:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Grade rationing listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Grade rationing. Since you had some involvement with the Grade rationing redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-10[edit]

23:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Acne vulgaris/archive2[edit]

While I did not add additional comments since January 2017, I had been following the Acne FAC. I think it could be a FA someday, but still needs significant work. Frankly, I love the stuff you posted here [143] and think that should all be in the article (very interesting tidbits!) Next time it goes up for a FAC please email me and I will post a review again. Thank you! (just fyi: I am putting a similar note on a few user pages) --My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 13:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Today I added a few sections to acne, but I am not sure this one works [144] - please feel free to move/adjust it. I liked your "self care" idea, but was not sure where to put it. Where should something like cosmetic adhesive pads be added [145]? --My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 17:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
===Self-care=== is usually a sub-section underneath ==Treatment== or ==Management==. Since it's just a single sentence at the moment, adding a section heading might be overkill. (I've also just noticed that ===Diet=== is two sentences, and doesn't mention chocolate, so that might benefit from expansion or re-working. [Info about chocolate is covered in the ==Causes== section instead.] Maybe the ===Treatment diet=== section should be re-worked into a ===Self-care=== section.)
BTW, have you tried VisualEditor recently (the one that works like a word processor)? Its automatic citoid service is pretty awesome, especially for PubMed URLs. You click the 'Cite' button and paste the URL in its 'Automatic' tab, and then it will generate the entire citation template for you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I've been too scared to try the VisualEditor! Maybe I should finally attempt to use it. --My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 15:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I also added a Self care section [146] --My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 16:46, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Since my last comment, I have already had to restore that section once. --My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 22:15, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
A lot of editors are happy with it now. You can probably see a pencil icon in the right-hand corner of your editing toolbar (on regular articles and user pages, not talk pages). Click that to have a look around. (Just close the tab to exit if you don't want to save your changes.) I recommend trying it out on a page that has a table, if you want to see one reason why people are increasingly enthusiastic about it.
As for the acne article, I suspect that it will be easier to improve the article a couple of weeks from now, when it's getting less attention from so many editors who have their own (and sometimes mutually incompatible) ideas about what constitutes "the rules" (e.g., whether it's okay to cite a peer-reviewed article to verify information that anyone in the developed world can verify by walking into any store that sells cosmetics). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I posted a comment [147] in response to having a few sourced facts I added later removed. I do see the incompatibility. --My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 20:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Acne listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Acne. Since you had some involvement with the Acne redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. --My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 19:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-11[edit]

15:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Project namespace[edit]

Iam done with this pages update. Was missing alot about the pages themselves and there content. Can i get you took take a look see if the wording and view is correct in your mind. For some odd reason this policy page unlike the others I edit seems to have noone following it....I usually get lots of feedback as I go. I made the changes to the description of types of pages based on this edit you did. Love some help....for some strange reason the past few years has seen a huge drop off in people updating these pages. -- Moxy (talk) 21:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Moxy,
I think that there has been a change in the way the m:Namespace shift happens. More drama, and less trying to fix up the documentation, maybe? It might be emblematic of how the community has changed. Overall, I think that page is more useful now that you've worked it over. Thanks.
However, I'm not certain that this page is correctly tagged as a guideline. It appears to have been a unilateral decision in 2012; a much earlier WP:PROPOSAL on the talk page failed. It feels a bit more like an information page to me. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I would tend to agree.--Moxy (talk) 13:59, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-12[edit]

22:03, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Good article reassessment of Alkaline diet[edit]

Alkaline diet, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. InsertCleverPhraseHere 04:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Just FYI[edit]

I can't write/respond much. You may wanna look at Dank's comments re VE crashing on talk page of my sandbox  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:29, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the Wikiproject Medicine image sourcing discussion[edit]

I am about spent. (I'm giving up.) Lead a horse to water, and all that. As I say in closing there, today, were this discussion ongoing anywhere but here at WP, the matter, as clear as the matter is at its core, things would have quickly been settled. In this case, I think no one wants to take on the chef de ré·sis·tance, and so status quo will remain. Maybe for this, like other of our closeted skeleta, it will take the secret—of our allowing self-publication of medical images—getting out, and the scientific and popular press having a field day, before anything changes.

Otherwise, regarding the matter of unsourced vs. unverifiable. As this was a separate, larger matter from the rest of what we tried to cover at WProj Med, I moved this discussion here.

For most intents and purposes, unsourced means unverifiable. Short of chucking whole sections of content that are unsourced, who really has time to check to see if all content is factually correct? At least with sourcing, we have a slim hope of verifiability for the highest profile articles. But even there, no sources, no hope, it's all "just trust us." So practically speaking, I believe the two terms are synonymous, for the most expert and busiest of our editors. And these are the folks that matter the utmost, for the continued health of the place—their (including your) continuing, and attracting others like-minded/spirited to come on board.

By the by, I would offer an educated guess that the demise of your television, and the health of your homelife (and your levelheadedness in extracurricular discussions) are, on some level, correlating phenomena. Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

The "who really has time to check" problem is exactly why I keep "possible to verify" separate from "cited". Ghost citations, {{failed verification}}, and statements that were accurate when cited but have been changed since then, can be significant problems, so the presence of citations doesn't mean that the material is verifiABLE. On the other side, the absence of citations doesn't mean that the material can't be verified; it only means that nobody has made any explicit claims about where their (which may not be "the current") content came from.
I agree with giving up on this discussion: you're not going to win. But I hope that it will have inspired some of our more zealous editors to re-double their requests for image donations. We've made a lot of progress on that in the last year or two. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Still, I maintain that the starting point of all validity of the encyclopedia (as at least Sanger, if not Wales acknowledged) is that every factual claim is sourced. Citation does not ensure verifiability, but lack of it practically ensures that content will never be checked. And in my experience, unchecked early content—certainly in lower importance articles, but also in many highest importance ones—remain substantially inaccurate, poor in scope, off-point, etc. Perhaps your experiences are different; mine is largely based in the sciences, but—in seeking to maintain this professional sidebar activity as a pleasure—it has also extended to any area that students, colleagues, or family calls to my attention to WP content that is confusing, questionable, etc. (so this week has wandered into history, anima and other pop culture, current events, etc.).
With regard to the WP Medicine discussion, understand that starting out there, even knowing that Doc was one participant in the problem, was the right call strategically, and out of respect for the organisation, the Project, and Doc. But the matter will not end with that discussion. The fact that Doc gets consent for his images does not mean that all who upload do or will. Given Doc's esteem, and his role in creating and sustaining the problem (self-publishing medical information via images—had he never started, its resolution would be much simpler), I'm unsurprised that this is a dead end. But there is no way this practice continues in the long run. The ethical and intellectual consequences are too problematic, the potential implications too broad. The matter will get resolved somehow (if not bottom up, then some other way).
Look forward to seeing your work over time, in other places. Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-13[edit]

14:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)