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

You are always so helpful. I hope you could help me find a way to count my edits. I have been using the following site: http://toolserver.org/~tparis/pcount/index.php?name=Iss246&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia

I tried the site today but but my screen returned "Page not found (404)"

I thought you would be able to help me find an alternative edit counter. Thanks.Iss246 (talk) 02:07, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The fourth item on the first page of Special:Preferences will tell you the number of edits here at the English Wikipedia. There are several counters that use slightly different methods for counting (mostly involving whether you edited a page that has since been deleted), so the numbers may be different from what you expect.

The link might not be working because of the planned migration from Toolserver to its replacement, or it might be a temporary problem, or it might be that TParis (the editor who has been maintaining that counter) has decided to turn it off. Eventually, I expect that we'll have a new link to an edit counter. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I didn't realize that Special:Preferences would provide me with the number of edits. It was a page I did not visit much.Iss246 (talk) 15:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject edit counters for a full list. is probably the best, as it gives pie charts for namespace, and an opt-in timeline. –Quiddity (talk) 19:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Quiddity. I tried it out. It works well.Iss246 (talk) 20:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I tried it again, but this time from my user page, and it stopped working for me! It returns the word "success" when I try to count my edits. I must be doing something wrong.Iss246 (talk) 20:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

It's also a bit erratic. If it doesn't work, wait a few minutes, or an hour, and try again. –Quiddity (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Thank you again. It has been a little temperamental. But it finally worked for me.Iss246 (talk) 21:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I got almost a dozen screenfuls of error messages, but then it worked. It's not counting deleted edits, though. WhatamIdoing (talk) 13:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 120#Toolserver issues for a current discussion of toolserver instability, and remarks about deleted edits being counted (or not) in editcounts. (Also a mention at the end, of the toolserver transition, which leads to mw:Wikimedia Labs/Migration of Toolserver tools#Schedule for the transition (will last from June 2013 till mid 2014)). –Quiddity (talk) 17:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I really don't think you understand the consequences of your actions in this crusade against that template. It isn't intended to be used on any pages other than categories. We have other templates that serve this purpose for article mainspace pages. Greg Bard (talk) 22:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

If the sole purpose of that template is to violate WP:ELNO#EL18, then it should be deleted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thank you for the good work you have done with the Breast cancer awareness article. Gandydancer (talk) 22:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. There's still more that needs to be double-checked there, but one baby step at a time, and we'll have it done before the WP:DEADLINE. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia talk:Signatures#Automated signatures - I have been trying out VE, but they're not showing up in searches...? Oh, we have to use lowercase for tagfilters. See my contribs and various bugzilla submissions. ;P (Not much, admittedly, have been saved, but there are dozens of times I've tried to use it and had to fall back to edit-source, due to errors or templates or frustration) –Quiddity (talk) 06:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I've made a couple dozen, but my experience has been about the same. Sometimes it's not the efficient choice, but sometimes it just doesn't work, and frequently it's not even possible (e.g., adding any source). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I thought you were telling me (in that thread) that I haven't been trying out VE. Oh, the confusions of indents and non-Flow discussions... ;) –Quiddity (talk) 16:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah. I suppose that I ought to make more effort to name people in discussions, although I worry sometimes that it will make other people feel excluded. Anyway, yes, I was talking about Redrose. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Or make people feel as if they're being lectured! "@Username: Listen here, and listen carefully!" Hence my latest bugzilla:49446 submission... –Quiddity (talk) 17:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. I could use some help at the Betty Friedan article. This para (3rd para under Writing career): According to Daniel Horowitz, Friedan's time as a labor journalist was when she first became aware of women's oppression and exclusion, although Friedan herself disputed this interpretation of her work.[10] has a book as the ref but it does not seem reasonable that I would need to read the entire book to find the statement. Considering that this is a BLP and Friedan does not agree with the Horowitz statement, it seems to me that it would need better sourcing and perhaps even a better followup statement from Friedan. Then, the second statement re being a Marxist: Horowitz also states that Friedan concealed her past as a Stalinist Marxist.[11], that ref seems poor to me. I deleted the para asking for better sourcing and it was returned suggesting that I was free to provide it... What do you think? Gandydancer (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Why would you need to read the whole book to find the statement? It lists page numbers (from the foreword). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Susan G. Komen for the Cure, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. 155blue (talk) 01:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. I've replied on your user talk page, with a link to the article's talk page and with instructions on where to find the edit summary for this edit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I notice that you're one of the few people who have commented positively at WP:RFC/U/A and are still active. If you get the chance, could you take a look here? I just drafted my first one and would like some feedback to know whether or not I'm doing it wrong. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:26, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, MezzoMezzo. It's a little long, which is common but not always as effective as a slightly briefer statement. People often grasp the crux of the dispute more quickly if there is a single main point directly stated, like "He makes many bigoted comments against Muslim sects, which violate Policy X". Similarly, your desired outcomes amount to "He will become a mature adult", which is probably more than can be expected from a single discussion. You might try reading SMART criteria. A more attainable and measurable goal might be "He will stop accusing editors who disagree with him of being Muslims".

I don't mean to say that you have to remove all the other things; some general statements are fine. But I think that you want at least one goal that is easily measured.

As a minor point, in the "past infractions" paragraph, you could link directly to his block log if you wanted: [1]

You've listed attempts by other people to resolve the dispute. Have you talked to any of them about officially endorsing? WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

@User:WhatamIdoing, wow, that's some awesome advice. I will review things and do my best to cut down the length and set more realistic objectives. As for talking to the other people, then no, and that's a big question. Would that violate Wikipedia:Canvassing? Or can I literally just post on their talk page and ask "would you endorse this"? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I've tried to trim things down and am still in the process. Would you be able to find the time to take another look and see whether or not it's ready for candidacy? I don't want to screw things up. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

To answer the earlier question, yes, you are permitted to simply post a note to their pages to ask whether they will certify or endorse it.

I think you've made a reasonable effort and you feel free to proceed. Keep in mind that  RFC/U is not magic pixie dust, and that positive resolution requires all sides to be thoughtful, mature, and competent. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

That is a very important point for myself and all others commenting to keep in mind. And thanks so much for your feedback! MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

One last thing...I listed it as a candidate page but it was already certified when it was still in my sandbox. Do you know who moves it to the certified list? MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

You may, if you want. If you don't, then someone else will probably notice it and move it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Can you offer your thoughts in this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 15:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I wondered if you could tell me how to put a tag on some text that is unsourced. There is text in a small section of the encyclopedia entry for industrial and organizational psychology that is unsourced. The section concerns i/o psychology and work and health. I remember that there is a tag of some sort that does not take up much space but that is a flag to indicate sourcing would be helpful. Thanks.Iss246 (talk) 02:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I got it. ((unreferenced)). Thanks anyway.Iss246 (talk) 02:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

For inline tags, you want ((Fact)) (aka "citation needed"). You type it as ((fact|date=June 2013)). If you leave off the date, then a bot will add it for you. I've corrected it for you.

((Unreferenced)) is for whole articles that have no citations or sources listed at all. ((Unreferenced|section)) is for whole sections with no citations.

The "tl" bit is for when you want to talk about a template. It means "template link", so the whole thing means "put a template link" (that's the "tl" part) "to this" (the pipe or vertical bar) "unreferenced" (the template you named, which in this case is the 'unreferenced' template). To actually use ("transclude") a template, you leave out the "tl" and the pipe, as shown above. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library (talk | edit) Get free access to research! Research tools and services Resource Exchange Reference Desk Research Desk Discover open access Free Resource Guides Book Sources Journal Sources Bibliographies Free newspaper sources Online archives Find Your Local Library tips Find Your Source tips How to find sources Citation tools guide Outreach The Wikipedia Library Bookshelf (meta) Universities and Libraries Archivists Publishers Wikipedia Loves Libraries Wikidata source metadata Get involved Get free access to sources Read the Books & Bytes newsletter Help disambiguate authors of scholarly papers Be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar Teach Library Interns Become a Coordinator Learn about TWL ...Support Open Access...

The Wikipedia Library gets Wikipedia editors free access to reliable sources that are behind paywalls. Because you are signed on as a medical editor, I thought you'd want to know about our most recent donation from Cochrane Collaboration.

• Cochrane Collaboration is an independent medical nonprofit organization that conducts systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health-care interventions, which it then publishes in the Cochrane Library.
• Cochrane has generously agreed to give free, full-access accounts to 100 medical editors. Individual access would otherwise cost between $300 and $800 per account.
• If you are still active as a medical editor, come and sign up :)

Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey, WhatamIdoing. I take it by not weighing in on this, you agree with the wording as is (what S Marshall changed it to)? I assume that because I know that you have been involved in writing Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and there is currently a thread that you participated in at the aforementioned talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 12:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'm a couple hundred pages behind in my watchlist. Today and tomorrow are very busy days for me, but I'll take a look if I can. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, WhatamIdoing. And I got a lesson here in what it means to be so behind on a watchlist. Flyer22 (talk) 16:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I had a quick look. I'm just not too worried about the difference between "it's better to try to [comply with PRESERVE]" and "try to [comply with PRESERVE]". We've got a lot of newbies who aren't adding sources because they can't: it's too complicated and they honestly can't figure out how to do it. (This is supposed to get improved with WP:VisualEditor.) We've got people who don't add sources because they don't realize that it's necessary. And on the flip side, we've got some very prolific people who are removing BURDEN-compliant sourced material because the source is "only" a peer-reviewed medical journal article, but not a good enough one. The exact balance is difficult to find, but this is a collaborative project: if the information looks like it might be appropriate for the article, then "try". You don't have to try very hard. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know your take on this matter. I still disagree with the "try to" wording, for the reasons that I and those who agree with me about this stated in that discussion; not to mention, like I also stated in that discussion, I don't see too many people doing the "try to." If it's unsourced, we generally add a "citation needed" tag to it or remove it. If it's recently added unsourced material, we almost always remove it; I certainly do when I come across it. I just don't feel that the WP:BURDEN and/or other type of cleanup (such as text formatting) that can come with it should be on me when I'm not the one who added the unsourced material; that wording is telling me that the burden is on me. For example, if someone adds a whole bunch of unsourced text to a WP:GA article that I helped bring to WP:GA status, then it is up to me to source that material because I can see that it's verifiable. Nope, not how it should work. Again, WP:BURDEN is contradictory to me now. I haven't decided if I'm going to start a WP:RfC about this or if I'm going to let it go unless someone else brings it up in the future. Flyer22 (talk) 17:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that you go read WP:PRESERVE and remember that PRESERVE is co-equal with BURDEN. WhatamIdoing (talk) 13:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm already very familiar with WP:PRESERVE, and still stand by what I stated above. Flyer22 (talk) 15:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Hooray!

Jorm (WMF) (talk) 21:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Now we have to get you onto irc.--Jorm (WMF) (talk) 21:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Nu! IRC is dangerous! So many distracting interesting people to harass in realtime! (I spent many years either addicted to IRC, or attached to IRC for a job. It's very efficient....)

That kitten is adorable, and the picture embiggens nicely... –Quiddity (talk) 01:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Aren't you going to be at the offices this weekend, Q?--Jorm (WMF) (talk) 01:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Yup indeed. (Please tell me there's a kitten that lives at the offices?!) –Quiddity (talk)

Well. Roary. --Jorm (WMF) (talk) 02:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm glad that you're pleased. I hope it will still be true in a couple of months. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey, gratz on the new WMF post! - Dank (push to talk) 00:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Wish me luck! WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Ghaaa. Who's going to fix my typos and keep Wiki Project Med from doing dumb stuff, then? Oh God, God noooo. If they don't lay palm leaves before you and sing "Hosanna" as you walk through the doors, they don't realise what they've got. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I've insisted on doing this part-time so that I'll have a small chance at keeping up with some volunteer work, so your typos still have a chance. We'll see how well it will work out, but that's the goal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

What he said. Good luck. Not that the WMF ever does anything wrong, but if they do, you're one of the people I'll nudge :) - Dank (push to talk) 10:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice words.

Leaving aside the question of fallibility, there will certainly be bugs that need to be fixed. WP:VisualEditor is a massive change—probably the biggest change since Mediawiki itself was deployed in 2002—and you know how impatient some of our power users get with even tiny changes (remember "Aaaah! The evil devs put part of my watchlist in bold!" last year?). Massive changes involving software so complex that bugs are inevitable is going to be painful for some of us, especially in the early days. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. If it's not any inconvenience, could you comment at this RSN post? It seems I'm getting feedback from editors who've cited the source in their edits to articles, and I'd like a more impartial opinion, so I randomly picked you out from the WP:RS talk page, LOL Dan56 (talk) 02:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I have replied there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, my thread on the Pump was simply supposed to start a discussion, not be a explicit 'proposal'...as I had noted, there was not a policy specifically against what I was talking about, other than the 'anti-unapproved-bot' stuff, and given that I had 'argued' with the person in question on his talk page, I really didn't want to specifically start drama there with him. Honestly, I was mostly hoping that by raising the issue in a public forum, I would get an 'expression' of what seemed to be the already existing consensus that I could point to, since he basically presents the attitude on his talk page that he isn't going to listen to individuals at all. I only got 'specific' due to people saying that I wasn't stating the 'problem' clearly enough, and as I said, he's not the only person that does it...just by far the most prolific. Unfortunately, apparently nobody else considers it to be a significant issue, given the responses, which I'm taking as an indication that I should just drop it. He's /blatantly/ flaunting the rules despite prior blocks about the same thing, though.

I personally try to avoid 'drama' as much as possible, because due to my own personal issues I don't usually come across very well. Revent (talk) 16:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I think you're right: There isn't general support, so the cost of that battle is likely to be far higher than any benefit—even if we assumed that you'd 'win', which is not at all certain. I think that moving on to something more fun and more important is your best choice. Good luck, WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Not sure whether you're on the job yet. If you are, can I point you to what seems to be a reasonable concern voiced by JohnCD at AN, in case it gets missed? [2] --19:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. It looks like other people are taking care of the conversation, and I'm elsewhere at the moment. (I thought that at least the problem with changes outside the lines you're editing had been fixed in the latest update?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello! I'm from the Turkish Wikipedia and I need to ask you a question about the Cleanup Taskforce. As I saw this team was active a few years ago in wikipedia. But it is not active anymore in the english and turkish wikipedias. For a few days I'm thinking to make a new team in the turkish wikipedia. But I was wondering why the taskforce isn't active anymore in wikipedia? If you can help I would be very pleasured. Nice Day! Talha Samil Cakir --85.102.170.176 (talk) 21:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:Cleanup Taskforce was a WP:WikiProject that duplicated the efforts of WP:Cleanup. There's nothing wrong with two separate groups of people doing the same thing, but usually, one (or both) of the groups will become inactive over time, as people get bored and lose interest. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I've seen comments you made earlier this year about the need to update documentation with the advent of the visual editor. You may be interested in this thread. --RA (✍) 22:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I have been scrutinized about sock puppetry. I was wondering if ‎Psych999 (talk · contribs), Mattbrown69 (talk · contribs), and 110.143.253.102 (talk · contribs) have been sock puppets for Mrm7171.Iss246 (talk) 16:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The IP probably is Mrm7171 (see this), but it's probably accidental rather than a deliberate effort to deceive. On the other hand, the blocking admin probably wants to take a look at the IP, which made an edit today, while the registered account is blocked. The IP should probably be blocked to match the registered account.

The "Matt" account doesn't overlap, and so either it isn't him, or it is but it doesn't matter, because you're allowed to completely abandon an old account and start a new one. (This is pretty common for people who use a real name.)

I don't know about the Psych999 account. It looks a little suspicious, but then pretty much any new account that's involved in a dispute looks suspicious. If you have some reason to believe that there is more going on than "new person who disagrees with me", then you could request an investigation at WP:SPI. The first question to consider is whether it would be at all worthwhile. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

We’ve redesigned the Grants:IdeaLab to make awesome collaborators and shiny new ideas easier to find.
You’re invited to the (re)Launch party!

Come visit and create a profile, share or join an idea, and tell us what you think about the updates!

Hope to see you there! Siko (WMF) (talk) 19:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

How can we verify offline references? (chat) techatology 23:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, assuming that "ask the person who wrote it" isn't an option for some reason, then personally, I often first check Google Books and Amazon.com for books, or search directly for the newspaper's website for news articles. "Not linked" and "really, truly not available online" aren't the same.

If that fails, then I usually go to the library. But if that's not an option for you, then you use the methods recommended in the pages I point you towards, which amount to "ask other people for help". There are 125,196 active editors here. Just because you don't have access to a source doesn't mean that no one does. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

That is what you wanted. Best. Biosthmors (talk) 14:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I'd gotten distracted in between the "copy" and the "paste" and forgot about the necessary modification. I'd probably have noticed... eventually. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi! You posted this text earlier today. In connection to this, I'm wondering if there will be a possibility of making the login (cookie) stay for more than the current 30 days? That way, we can minimise the hassle of haphardazly being logged once a month. Best of wishes.--Paracel63 (talk) 19:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Paracel63,

Thank you for your note. I don't know the answer to your question, but I'll ask someone and see if I can find out. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, the 30 day limitation is actually a technical one that is due to the maximum length that certain browsers have for storing these things. --Jorm (WMF) (talk) 20:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

That ought to make it a technical limitation on some users but not others.

I thought that some projects had a longer length at one time, but the ones I've checked just now are all 30 days (except one that didn't say). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, I've got an answer, and the answer is that foundation:Privacy policy does not allow a cookie to be stored for more than 30 days. Therefore although it may be technically possible, it is not permitted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

That makes a great deal more sense to me.--Jorm (WMF) (talk) 00:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for finding the answer. A while ago the cookie was made to have a lifespan of 180 days (at least at svwp), but that change has since been reversed. Probably some techie discovered the policy paper.--Paracel63 (talk) 21:53, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Paracel63, I think that you might want to see meta:Talk:Privacy policy/Call for input (2013)#Longer cookies, longer log-in times. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I have made a proposal at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Fork the wiki in which I used a diff authored by you as an example. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:42, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I doubt that you will find consensus for your proposal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:26, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I do too. But I had to try. This has already caused damage to the encyclopedia and after Flow comes in, I think I will have to leave or at least resign my adminship because I won't be able to be sure everyone is being given the same information. As it is, this has made me regret being made an admin, because I believe it requires me to at least try to defend the encyclopedia rather than just put my head down and write more articles. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:16, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 31, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Workshop.

magic tools
Thank you, user with an annoyingly high Intelligence Quotient, for quality articles contributions in MED, VE support, precise language, and for speaking edit summaries, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:16, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. I hope the ArbCom case proves useful to the community. I unfortunately don't have time to keep up with it. Perhaps someone will ping me if there are questions that I need to answer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for offering, I will call if I need help, it's all new to me. I am late to the war, and have a hard time understanding how a simple tool can create so much heat. It seems not easy to cool that down without getting burned ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

ps: I see so many diffs for old events, while a look at the recent Wagner - Sparrow Mass - Don Carlos would show a lot, - but not to people who can't read a history, as I noticed in a case I watched --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

The members of ArbCom are highly experienced at reading a history, but what's most helpful to them is to provide examples of specific edits, in order, that tell a story, like John added, Bob removed, Joe added again with a nasty edit summary, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:53, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

That's what I mean. They can't read it themselves, I have to say "nasty" and then I can be called "nasty" ;) - English is not my first languages, I try to avoid that. Could you word the Don Carlos story for me that way? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

You didn't write that story, I wasn't nasty enough to do it, now we are here. A gem found today: "Consensus does not mean that stupidity and ignorance be given equal weight to common sense and knowledge." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm just letting you know that I'm trying to implement your idea at Wikidata (d:Wikidata:Property_proposal/Term#doctor_specializing_in). I'm still waiting for more supportive comments, but I think it can be created soon. --Tobias1984 (talk) 15:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:20, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm intrigued by the wording in Wikipedia:Advice_pages#Advice_pages. I largely agree with it.

However, given that it has been cited as evidence in an Arbcom case (See this evidence, especially the first bullet point in this section)

I hadn't seen this page before. On the one hand, that shouldn't be surprising, there are a lot of pages, and most of us have seen only a small portion. However, at the time I was looking into running for admin, I made a point of reading all the policies and guidelines, and this didn't ring a bell. That was some time ago, but at a later date, I started a project (since abandoned) to track the size of policies and guidelines over time, and this wasn't on my list.

I looked at Wikipedia:List of guidelines and do not see it listed (to be fair, the advice page is mentioned in the see also list, but by definition, a see also list is supposed to be other things, not the main subject, so one would expect to find a guideline in a list of guidelines, not buried in a see also list. I do note that the heading says " a summary of the most important guidelines" so not exhaustive. I then went, as suggested, to the more comprehensive list, Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines but I do not see it there either. While this does not mean it isn't a guideline, it does suggest that it may escape the review of even diligent editors.

I then looked to see how the wording was developed.

If I am reading the history correctly, it was added in one edit here.

I looked to read the consensus discussion. Because the edit was in March 2010, I checked Archive 14, which covers Sep 2009–April 2010, and do not see anything.

Please do not get me wrong - I very much support the general theme. However, if the guideline is going to be part of an ArbCom decision, and it turns out to be written by one editor with no discussion, and in a guideline not listed in the obvious lists, that may dilutes its impact. I haven't done a lot of research, so it is possible there has been extensive discussion, but in some other place. As the author of the words, I'm hoping you can shed some light on the history.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sphilbrick,

The usual link is a bit misleading, because of course it's just a section in the WP:WikiProject Council/Guide. It probably ought to be something like WP:ADVICEPAGES so it's more obvious that it's a section in a larger (if underwatched) guideline.

After four years, I don't really know where, or even whether, there was a single discussion explicitly about adding this. Were I going to search, I'd look at WT:POLICY and the Village Pumps as well. I know that it accurately reflects the consensus of editors at WT:COUNCIL and the larger community in general. I know, too, that multiple people had repeated this basic information on multiple occasions before I wrote it up in an easily linked form; it is not merely something that I made up. Kirill is highly active at WT:COUNCIL, so he will likely be able to help ArbCom figure out how much they want to trust it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that's helpful. I'll poke around.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:40, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Did you know ... that since you expressed an opinion on the GA/DYK proposal last year, we invite you to contribute to a formal Request for Comment on the matter? Please see the proposal on its subpage here, or on the main DYK talk page. To add the discussion to your watchlist, click this link. Regards, Gilderien Chat|What I've done22:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello. May I clarify, are you questioning my wikt:veracity or wikt:expertise? I've had a brief look at your contributions to wikipedia and although I can see good work since 2007, and also several article creations, it doesn't strike me that you are an active editor in the area under discussion, i.e. European BLPs, so what gives you the authority to "not believe" an editor who is? Since I am not sure how to respond to your comment "I also don't believe your assertion" - I wonder if perhaps you just simply misread my comment. What I said was that Ana Ivanovic is the only case of a simple-diacritic stripped BLP on en.wp. It's possible that there's a stub lurking somewhere by accident that is so non-notable that no one has ever noticed the mistake, but that is a completely different thing from a deliberate removing of diacritics from a highly visible BLP as happened here. Otherwise, apart from the rudeness of your statement, best regards. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

There are more than one million biographies in the English Wikipedia. I sincerely doubt that any human, no matter how dedicated or interested, is capable of knowing that only one out of this more than a million pages has been "deliberately" placed at a non-diacritic-containing name. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi again

Okay fair enough so rather than questioning my personal knowledge of BLPs, you quite reasonably consider it would a superhuman feat to know the status of en.wp's BLP corpus. Understood. It might look like that to someone not familiar with the history, yes. In that case, please consider this: There have only been 2 wikiprojects which have had editors who have objected to "foreign names" correct? (please nod, because if you don't know the history then you'll have to take my word for it) And these two projects - ice hockey and tennis - both had long drawn out fights about it over 2 years with repeated scandals at ANI, blocking and socking etc, which led to RfCs with the majority strongly supporting foreign names in both projects. So in these circumstances do you think it is likely that someone in a third project somewhere has deliberately moved an East European BLP (since it tends to be East Europeans rather than French German Hispanic that people object to) without it causing a minor nuclear detonation? Bear in mind that any notable BLP tag will not only have an profession tag (WP Tennis, WP Ice hockey, WP Architecture, WP Politics) it will also have a national project tag (WP Poland, WP Serbia), which means that any prominent RM is immediately picked up by Article Alerts on the national project pages. Therefore unless an article is incompletely tagged (which means it is some borderline Estonian ice-skater no one has ever heard of and the misspelling is accidental) it is virtually impossible to strip accents/diacritics without the full spotlight of all associated projects being shone upon it.

I hope the situation is clearer from the above explanation? I hope you will see why it is not a superhuman feat to know how en.wp's BLPs are titled, it merely requires having been around BLPs a little -- plus there are only a handful of Usual suspects who would even think of deliberately giving a foreign BLP an "English name". IPs can't appear and strip names, new users (or sockpuppets) very quickly get spotted. Ergo, the situation is I have described, which is why ground zero is Ana Ivanovic, the first shot in the WP:Tennisnames war, and now the last stand. Predictable in some ways - a photogenic Serbian girl with fanboys who like her but don't quite so like her Serbian name, if this was a fat Brussels bureaucrat's accent do you think this would raise such emotions? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:WikiProject advice pages. It doesn't matter if "a WikiProject" objects to following WP:DIACRITICS. Many pages (perhaps as high as 20%) aren't tagged at all, and many WikiProjects are inactive or don't track page moves. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I am aware of that, however notable BLPs will and do attract attention if someone tries to rename them. But that has little bearing on your "I also don't believe your assertion" comment. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Per your statement above, you should be saying "the Ivanovic article is the only one of over a million BLPS where a deliberate removing of diacritics from a highly visible (non-stub) BLP has taken place" rather than your scare "1 article in 4 million" nonsense. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Or, more precisely, it's the only one that's come to his attention. Without a comprehensive search, I would not feel comfortable making such an assertion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I see The Rambling Man is following me.

Naturally without a comprehensive search, I also would not feel comfortable making such an assertion. But having made a comprehensive search, I do feel comfortable making such an assertion. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Please tell me more about your search mechanism. My back-of-the-envelope calculation says that even reading the names of one million articles would take about one month of full-time work. To not only read all the titles, but to determine which ones should have been written with diacritics would take—well, you've said that you've done it. How long did it take you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

As I said, having made a comprehensive search, I do feel comfortable making such an assertion. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi,
I think this is a very good idea. Are you still thinking in that direction? A template like that might be helpful. bobrayner (talk) 00:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bob,

Yes, I still think it's a good idea overall, or at least that it could be, if we get the wording right. It would be nice to have something that was more neutrally informative than "you screwed up and your !vote shouldn't be counted". The technical end of making a template like this is super easy, since it wouldn't need any switches or other programming things. The main impediment is deciding what the wording should be. I don't have a lot of time to work on this for the next month or two, though. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Careful wording is the harder part, and in that area my skills are probably far inferior to yours.

I will try drafting something on the talkpage. bobrayner (talk) 01:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Media Molecule may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• * ((Official website|http://www.mediamolecule.com/))}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I came across your username via one of numerous discussions of VE, which seems to have generated an extraordinary quantity of hot air (though not from you).

What you say about "which" and "that" is broadly correct. But I hope that you don't mean to suggest that there's anything wrong with "restrictive" which, because of course there isn't anything wrong with it. (For why "restrictive" and "defining" are less than fully appropriate terms, consider Huddleston and Pullum's example [in CGEL, pp 1064-1065] "He sounded like the clergyman he was": containing what they call a "bare integrated relative" clause, one that doesn't restrict the reference of "clergyman" in any way.) -- Hoary (talk) 09:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't generally go which-hunting myself, but we have editors that do, and I keep the explanation handy for people who believe that the substitution of that or the removal of who is actually wrong. There are a few instances in which maintaining the distinction is helpful to the reader. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi. We really need your opinion on which of these photos would make the best Infobox portrait for the Rick Remender article. Could you please offer your opinion in that discussion? The most recent subsection of that discussion is here, so you can just chime in there if you don't want to read the whole thread. I really appreciate it. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 17:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

WAID, with all respect, while you're probably right, is now really the right time? This is a group that's upset because they fear core tools, necessary to their work, might end up phased out. While I don't for a moment think it was your intent, you have to realise that, as a member of the WMF, telling them that, well, basically, that they aren't as important as they think, when you don't address their actual concerns, can very, very easily be read as dismissive. Again, I don't think that's what you meant, but you need to be a little bit more careful. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Adam, and thanks for sharing your concern. I don't really expect Michael to feel dismissed merely because WPMATH is objectively only the second most active WikiProject by one measure. I thought, actually, that he'd be more likely to appreciate the links to data than not.

At this point, it appears that their concerns have already been addressed: math will be supported. Consequently, I saw no need to repeat in my volunteer capacity what has already been said repeatedly by Jorm and Maryana in their professional capacities. If any person won't believe Jorm, who said that he personally witnessed math editing being successfully used on the internal test system for Flow today, then that person certainly won't believe anything that I bother to say about it as a volunteer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

True. Just worried because tensions are so high just now. Don't really want any more drama. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I'm saying this offline based mainly on your comments about Wikipedia at WP:Naming conventions (use English). I apologise if this is inappropriate but I had a brief look at your contributions before coming here to get an idea where you're coming from and try to understand your view better. I note that you have only 20% of so article space contributions, few article creations and few (perhaps none, I can't recall now) article creations touching on European language article space (Hungarian bios, Maltese geo articles, that sort of thing). This of course is no problem, we all have our contributions. But it does mean that you may not be well informed of editor consensus and article reality (another form of editor consensus) in the area you wish to participate in directing editors but do not yourself regularly edit. I hope that is not unfair comment, it is a simplistic generalization from your contributions, and therefore may be wrong. If it is accept my apologies and correct me. If it is correct, please listen to the following comment:

"If you want to know how to style a title, or how to spell it, then our rule has been to look at the reliable sources about that exact subject (i.e., not a style manual with general rules, but a reliable source that contains actual content about the specific subject in question). Prolog's list is entirely about how other places choose to style their titles and is consequently irrelevant."

You may consider this is "the rule" but the editing community overwhelmingly, as judged by RfCs, RMs, and most importantly article reality consider that sources which are unreliable for the statement being made are unreliable for the statement being made (I have just quoted WP:IRS in inverted form as I'm sure you realise).

There is no need to find out "how Wikipedia chooses to do it" because this is known. Take 10 en.wp non-English Latin alphabet European language space bio or geo articles of your own choosing and analyse them for yourself. Then come and discuss with editors who work in this space. It's a matter of courtesy to the editing community. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that unreliable sources are unreliable.

I do not agree that the definition of "reliable" (for spelling/diacritics/etc) is "contains diacritics".

Specifically, if you consider a case like cooperation, which can be validly spelled coöperation, I think that the community will reject your approach. Your approach is:

1. Find all the sources reliable for content about cooperation.
2. Throw away all the sources written in something other than English.
3. Throw away all the sources that don't contain diacritics.
4. Having severely biased the sample set in favor of adding the umlaut, decide whether or not the title should contain an umlaut.

In my experience the actual community-approved process is this:

1. Find all the sources reliable for content about cooperation.
2. Throw away all the sources written in something other than English.
3. Look at all of them to decide whether or not the title should contain an umlaut.

If you really believe that your biased approach is supported by the community, then you have absolutely nothing to fear from an RFC on the issue, and you ought to support it because it would result in us being able to document your idea that "sources are only reliable for spelling if they use diacritics somewhere in them" and thus stop these frustrating discussions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the above only illustrates that you don't understand the topic. Please, if you want to make rules for the community in regard to how editors working on LatAm geos or Czech bios title those articles, then please have the respect for editors working in an area you do not work in to first take 10 en.wp non-English Latin alphabet European language space bio or geo articles of your own choosing and analyse the titling for yourself. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

If the process that you prefer is the one actually approved by the community, then you should have no trouble getting the community to admit to that preference in an RFC. I would like the guideline in question to reflect what the community wants to do with this issue. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

		The Million Award
		For your contributions to bring condom (estimated annual readership: 1,017,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The Million Award is a new initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content; you can read more about the award and its possible tiers (Quarter Million Award, Half Million Award, and Million Award) at Wikipedia:Million Award. You're also welcome to display this userbox:

This editor won the Million Award for bringing Condom to Good Article status.

If I've made any error in this listing, please don't hesitate to correct it; if for any reason you don't feel you deserve it, please don't hesitate to remove it; if you know of any other editor who merits one of these awards, please don't hesitate to give it; if you yourself deserve another award from any of the three tiers, please don't hesitate to take it! Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Apparently a press release, so not copyvio[3]. Please don't revert again as I'd have to warn you for 3RR if I warn our new editor. This isn't really a problem anyway, I'm sure we have enough watchers on this article. Thanks though for your edits. Dougweller (talk) 05:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Dougweller, even press releases are copyrighted by their authors. The editor who has been adding that material is incapable of agreeing to release it under the license. This is a violation of our legal policies. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Odd, as press releases are meant to publicise, but ok, you learn something every day. Dougweller (talk) 20:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

And a bit of a tweak and it wouldn't have been copyvio if I understand [4] correctly. Dougweller (talk) 21:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, a pretty simple re-write would probably have solve the copyright problem.

The biggest issue isn't putting up a copy of someone's advertising efforts on a website, since you could argue (perhaps a bit weakly) that you have an implied license. The big problem here is that to put someone on Wikipedia, rather than on any old website, the person putting the material in the article must actually be capable of issuing a license himself for the material (to "irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL"). This requires you to have actual rights to the work, not merely an implied license to someone else's work.

The editor has sent me e-mail to say that he's going to try to re-write it in his own words, now that he understands the problem better. I don't know anything about the subject, so I'm glad to hear that it's on a lot of people's watchlists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see about the license now. Rewriting the nonsense won't help and I'm wondering if he can rewrite it enough to avoid close paraphrase. Dougweller (talk) 07:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm just letting you know that I have declined your CSD on User talk:120.149.40.66. We do not generally delete user talk pages, in particular those of IP addresses that might be shared. It is sufficient to simply remove any vandalism or spam. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey WhatamIdoing. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 21:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

You have been helpful in the past. I was hoping you can help again. I have been having difficulty with user:Mrm7171. So has User:Psyc12. Mrm7171 is very unbending about changes he wants to make to the OHP site. I don't know if it matters to you that both Psyc12 and I are professors who teach OHP courses; between us we have expertise in OHP. Mrm7171 wants consensus from Psy12 but when Psyc12 shares consensus on some points but not on every point, Mrm7171 insists that he is right and wants every one of 9 points he wants to enter onto the OHP page. I am lukewarm on some points Psyc12 concedes but I go along because I don't want to fight about every single point on Mrm7171's list of 9 points. Can you intervene? Just look at the last few sections of the OHP talk page. Thanks.Iss246 (talk) 21:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

As a note in passing, the English Wikipedia has had problems in the past with totally unqualified people claiming to be professors—one of the cases was notorious enough that it was reported in a major newspaper—so I wouldn't make a big deal out of your credentials. You might end up with someone unfairly creating problems for you because of prior bad experiences.

I really don't have a lot of time right now, but I'll look at it. I think it's time for an RFC. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I understand that you have to be cautious when someone asserts he or she is a professor. I understood your caution. With that understanding of your caution, I didn't raise an objection when you asked to have my IP address checked. Of course the checking indicated that Psyc12 and I are indeed different people. I don't think there is a way to demonstrate that I am a professor (I thought my writing style would be a tipoff) short of giving up my nom de plume, which I prefer to keep.Iss246 (talk) 22:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I didn't ask to have your IP address checked; that was someone else. I also believe that they check more than just the IP address (like which kind of web browser you use). There is no need for you to disclose your identity. I just don't want you to be blindsided if you ever encounter a problem with it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you can see what we have been dealing with on the OHP talk page today. You made a simple and reasonable suggestion that we deal with 2 items and not talk about anything else. Mrm7171 failed to do that, going on about us claiming to be professors, and bringing up other points that we have already discussed--some for months. If you check that talk page, I never claimed to be a professor (unless my memory and browser Find are both faulty). I certainly did not do it repeatedly, and neither did Iss246. Psyc12 (talk) 14:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I claimed to be a professor of psychology, which I am. Maybe I shouldn't have done that. I stated above that in Wikipedia, editors have to be cautious about other editors' claims. I appreciate user:WhatamIdoing's caution.Iss246 (talk) 15:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

If you don't want someone to rush forward in a discussion, the most effective approach is to slow down yourselves. There is no rule that says you have to reply within hours of someone else making a comment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

If you read the bottom of the OHP talk page, you will observe that I caught Mrm7171 making stuff up to suit his attempts to undermine OHP. I think he should be barred from Wikipedia for making stuff up.

Wikipedia is a fine project. However, when "contributors" make stuff up because they have a mission to accomplish such as undermining a subject area, such contributors should be barred from the encyclopedia. Mrm7171 should be barred from being able to edit on Wikipedia.Iss246 (talk) 02:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

That's difficult and requires a lot of time. The preferred model is that everyone else is infinitely patient and carefully explains the policies and facts over and over until the other person understands and agrees. (Also, we will all become enlightened and get a pony for Christmas. I'm not saying that the preferred model is entirely practical.)

If you want to consider it, then you'll need to read about the WP:Requests for comment/User conduct process and probably the WP:Banning policy. What's called a WP:TBAN would probably be adequate.

On a related note, have you read any of the essays about subject-matter experts on Wikipedia? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

It is difficult discuss an issue with with Mrm7171 because he keeps returning to the same points over and over again. For example, he kept ranting about different definitions of OHP as if the definition from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention--the CDC mind you!--was defective. He also raises obscure issues. For example, he recently asked me how many members of ICOH-WOPS are also members of EAOHP? I suppose that to him if there were people with dual memberships that somehow would reflect badly on OHP. Of course, in all honesty, I don't know the answer about dual memberships. I recommended that he get in touch with one of the organizations, and ask one of the officers.

Worst of all, he has tried repeatedly to reduce OHP to a province of i/o psychology. He has been doing that since January. I was patient with him, and was awarded a barnstar for months of patience.

But he continued ad naseum to repeat himself. He kept trying to reduce OHP to a province of i/o psychology. Today I pointed out the people most responsible for the expression "occupational health psychology" were not i/o psychologists at all. He went as far as to assert that the initials "OHP" were invented by i/o psychologists. What a ridiculous campaign! It has been as if he has a vendetta against OHP and will grasp at anything to argue. Although I won that old barnstar for my patience, I finally lost my temper. I comfortable saying that losing my temper was justified because I know a lot more about the subject matter than he does.

In any event, please post a link to your essays right here. Thank you for listening.Iss246 (talk) 04:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Start at WP:EXPERT, which is the easiest name to remember. There are more listed at the end of that page, and then more links if you follow those links. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:53, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, thank you for the comments you wrote today on the OHP Talk Page.Iss246 (talk) 17:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I am contacting every editor who commented at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Questions about "oppose" comments in WP:RFC/Us, in case you might wish to participate in the RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Clarification of the rules. Thank you. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:30, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, WhatamIdoing,

All the sources I have been consulting recently for edits to IQ classification and related articles strongly agree that terminology has changed, and what was formerly known as Mental retardation is now called Intellectual disability. The ICD 10 system of terminology appears to be the only one that hasn't fully made the switch, but the reliable secondary sources aren't waiting, and DSM-5 has made the switch. The National Library of Medicine medical subject heading has made the switch also. So I think that the two existing articles need to be merged. I have been reading up on the Wikipedia documentation about how to merge two articles with long edit histories, and that is not easy. I am willing to do all the work, but first of all I will gather the source citations to post to the talk pages of both articles. I hope you will look on as I do the work to make I sure merge the articles correctly. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi WeijiBaikeBianji,

I really don't think that you want to WP:MERGE the articles. Really. The two articles have seriously different subjects. I think that you want to WP:MOVE Intellectual disability to some more appropriate name, and then MOVE the existing MR article to the much more modern name.

We currently have two articles on two subjects. These are the subjects:

• An article about a particular class of medical disorders that always appear in the developmental period, always affect activities of daily living, always affect general/overall/broadly defined intellectual skills, and usually (but not quite always) is associated with an IQ of 70 or lower.
• An introductory or survey article about a wide variety of medical conditions that appear at widely divergent times of life (e.g., childhood vs old age), may or may not affect activities of daily living, may or may not affect general cognitive function, and may or may not be associated with low IQ.

It does not make sense to put all of this in one article. No matter what you call it, the main page about the developmental/childhood condition should not also have a summary of dementia, traumatic brain injury, post-chemotherapy cognitive impairment, or all of the other non-mental-retardation material.

I feel like I have explained this four or five times just to you. Do you understand that these are two completely different subjects? What do you think a reader who is looking for information about a child with Down syndrome would feel like, if the only page on Wikipedia about that child's intellectual challenges also contained information about people with Alzheimer's or victims of car wrecks? Your proposal to merge these two articles is a lot like proposing that Skin cancer be merged into Types of cancer. These two articles do not have the same subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Per the sources, "intellectual disability" is the new name for what you and I grew up knowing as "mental retardation." I expect that new name to be about as durable over time as the term "mental retardation" was, which means it will be all over the sources as the official and preferred name for the developmental condition of low IQ and low adaptive function during decades more of Wikipedia editing. By empirical observation, there are not a lot of active Wikipedia editors, and hardly any readers visiting Wikipedia for information, who can reliably distinguish your intended distinction between the two topics for the two articles and learn from or edit the articles accordingly. This is, of course, an issue well worth discussing on the article talk pages. I bring this up at this particular time only because I have dozens of sources at hand, currently circulated from academic libraries, and because another editor with medical training brought up the issue on the talk page of Mental retardation, pointing to the newly published DSM-5, a few weeks ago. At some point there has to be a name change for Mental retardation to Intellectual disability simply because the official terminology has changed, and Wikipedia naming of articles on medical topics is all about official terminology. (The relevant policy, as I think you remember, specifically points to DSM as one very authoritative source.) That being known, we then have the issue of articles with both names already existing to deal with. I'm willing to do all the pains-taking work involved in merging the two articles (after much review of Wikipedia documents, this appears to be the least nasty, most policy-following way to handle the situation). Of course I thought it would be a courtesy to inform some of the editors most active in the pair of articles about this thought in advance, to prompt discussion on the article talk pages involved. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 12:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand why this is so hard.

Look, these two pages are about different subjects.

 Yes: The page currently at MR ought to be at the title of ID. I tried to move it there myself a few hours ago. Unfortunately, you'll have to get an admin to move it.

 No: The page that eventually ends up at ID should not contain information about Alzheimer's disease, Traumatic brain injury, Cognitive deficit, Post-chemotherapy cognitive impairment, Specific learning disabilities or any of the other things that happen to affect intellectual functioning. "Appears in the developmental period" means "appears in children". "Appears in the developmental period" means "not Alzheimer's disease". Senile dementia is not the same disease as what the DSM-IV called mental retardation.

The end goal is two different pages to cover two different subjects. Merging the page is the wrong answer. We need to MOVE the pages to get them at their proper titles, not merge them so that everyone ends up confused about whether great-grandma's Alzheimers has produced the same mental condition that Down syndrome usually does. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi WAID! If you have a minute, could you check the citation examples page for the Cochrane donations? 59 accounts were approved and delivered this week :) Wikipedia:Cochrane/Citations Ocaasi ^{t | c} 23:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ocaasi,

I have a few questions:

• Why is the author sometimes omitted?
• Why doesn't the author match the authors listed on the abstract page?
• Are you really sure that ((cite web)) and ((cite news)) are appropriate, rather than ((cite journal)) (aka "cite paper" and "cite document")?
• Might people want the doi's presented as doi's rather than as URLs to their current location? (What if Cochrane moves to Elsevier instead of Wiley someday?)
• Why isn't PMID 18843647 listed? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:08, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks WAID :) for quite kindly pointing out the glaring problems I left while transposing the WP:HighBeam examples. I have given it a thorough cleanup. Could you double-check my work; I hope I got all of your points! Wikipedia:Cochrane/Citations --Ocaasi ^{t | c} 00:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that you want a plain-text example, even though most people will use templates. You might also give all the authors' names in the Pubmed format (Zacharias M, Conlon NP, Herbison GP, Sivalingam P, Walker RJ, Hovhannisyan K) for one of the examples, so that people don't feel like omitting them is somehow "required".

Have you done any baseline searches to determine how much this gets used? I don't think that you should assume that people will add the "via Cochrane/subscription required" bit, so I wouldn't use that for tracking. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks WAID. I added a plain text citation, good idea. We'll run some kind of link search of the database dump like we did at Wikipedia:HighBeam/Metrics, but we'll have to use a more clever approach since the links are part of Wiley and not a separate Cochrane website. You're right that links to 'via The Cochrane Library' won't be a valid comparison since folks probably didn't use it before. This is something I'll have to mull over a bit and discuss with Johnuniq who has been doing the metrics so far. It'd be nice if Cochrane had an identifier in the url, but that doesn't look to be the case. We should also have incoming traffic data from Cochrane's side which will be neat to see. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 01:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if they could give you a complete list of dois or PMIDs or something. You'd have to search for each and every one of them, and then add it up, but you'd get the answer. (Or even the titles.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

You may have missed my reply to your question about defining "expired".
—Wavelength (talk) 15:09, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I saw it, thanks. I think it would be appropriate to include that information in the proposed list for each item. "Expires after a year, it doesn't work then" is different from "expires after a year, actually, it's probably fine but we didn't test it past then". WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

In that case, List of data for expired health and beauty products can have an additional column.

Columns: "Product", "Shelf lifespan", "Expiry type", "Toxins produced after expiry".

—Wavelength (talk) 18:08, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

In this comment, you suggest I read Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Ending RfCs. That section does clarify some points in the discussion. However, that very section is linked to and quoted from in the comment you replied to. Are you suggesting I could somehow link to and quote something without reading it? ʍw 12:17, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that you need to trust that it really does mean what it says.

The "30-day timer on RFCs" is one of the English Wikipedia's more persistent myths. I don't recommend closing most RFCs in less than about a week (although sometimes, that is the right answer), but you really need not wait a month. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Oddly enough, the part where it says "The default duration of an RfC is 30 days" led me to believe that the default duration of an RfC is 30 days. Of course they can be closed sooner under special circumstances, such as if the OP removes the tag prematurely (which would defeat the purpose), or an uninvolved admin decides to SNOW close it, but I had thought such were the exceptions, not the rule, and as such, there's no reason to expect an early closure. When I said "We're bound... to wait an additional 30 days", the "we" referred to anyone who had participated in the discussion already, as we're all too involved to close it properly. ʍw 17:29, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

RFCs don't require closing by anyone. If everyone agrees that you've got the information that you need, then you pull the tag (almost always done by the OP), and move forward. This is not supposed to be a bureaucratic process.

Perhaps it would help if we balanced "If the issue is contentious or consensus remains unclear, formal closure is advisable" with the opposite: "If the matter is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable". The community already has more requests for formal closure than it's able to keep up with. We really don't need the obviously competent and calm people in that particular discussion to jump through needless hoops. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:24, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Emphasizing that "formal closure is neither necessary not advisable" in less-contentious discussions, and that the OP is expected to remove the tag once the consensus is clear, might clarify things a bit (although I thought it was standard practice that the OP of a discussion, or any other involved parties, doesn't decide when consensus is reached, or what the consensus is...). The current wording suggests formal closing after 30 days is the standard for any RfC. ʍw 18:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Have a look at this bold change. Let me know if you think that isn't clear enough. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:02, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

It helps. What still confuses me is that, in absence of a unanimous !vote for either support or oppose, it seems like the OP would need to start a meta discussion with the participants and form a consensus about the discussion under discussion before declaring a consensus for the original discussion (bureaucratic indeed). Yet many discussions are neither unanimous nor overly contentious. Most of this concern stems from this comment by User:Equazcion, which is more in line with how I thought consensus determinations made by the OP in discussions like this were usually treated (particularly the "You're the proposer, so you're hardly uninvolved enough" part).

ʍw 19:24, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

My concern when making my comment though was that you said you would move forward since the opposer's argument was flawed (my comment was in response to that); which is something proposers tend to naturally feel inclined to do. There is no rule about decisions such as these. They're kept informal. Based on my experience and the way the discussion had gone, I felt you needed to wait for more participation and an outside close before an action could be made that wouldn't end up contested. equazcion ^(talk) 19:39, 14 Sep 2013 (UTC)

Funny, I only said 'the opposer's argument was flawed' (and, in fact, not "flawed", but "proven to be flawed", as multiple commenters agreed (a micro-consensus, you might say)) to prevent the standard rebuttal of "consensus isn't just tallying a vote" (maybe it would have been clearer to say that the rationale was challenged, and that the commenter hadn't responded to those challenging their rationale). ʍw 19:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

You have to understand how that looks though. You just got your first opposer, and the supporters' reactions are to jump all over them, with the proposer then stating "well that argument is clearly flawed so let's just do this" (not a direct quote of course, but in essence how it looks). See WP:STEAMROLL. If you want to make a determination you need to balance yourself out a little more. The first oppose warrants waiting to see if there are more opposers before you start assessing arguments against you, if you should be doing that at all (as one hint). equazcion ^(talk) 19:52, 14 Sep 2013 (UTC)

I do indeed understand how it could look. So, again, how is the OP expected to determine when a discussion has run long enough, and what the consensus is, if comments from them will be discredited as biased? (Needless to say, the point is moot for the Notability Noticeboard discussion; I want it to be done by-the-book so that it only needs to be done once. But now we're discussing possible changes and clarifications to make to WP:RfC.) ʍw 20:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

See WP:CREEP. I don't think there's any further clarification to be made; It's just a matter of having the experience to know when things are clear. But off the top of my head, my advice would be that in anything but a unanimous situation, someone other than the proposer should probably be making the call. When you think enough time has gone by, and there is at least one oppose, I'd contact an admin to provide their assessment. equazcion ^(talk) 20:07, 14 Sep 2013 (UTC)

I would generally agree. But, that seems to be in conflict with WhatamIdoing's comments above. Unless every discussion is either considered to be unanimous or contentious. Although I can't why an RfC would be applied to most unanimous discussions, meaning that all RfCs are contentious. ʍw 20:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

A well-advertised discussion that's gone for a week and produced one early oppose and 20 supports since would be a snow support situation. A week with 4 supports and one oppose a couple hours ago doesn't warrant a snow. This is why I said it's a matter of having the experience to know, and there's no rule to stipulate in our policies. The current practice is informal and thus can't be codified. equazcion ^(talk) 20:20, 14 Sep 2013 (UTC)

Ah, so involved users should only close RfCs in unambiguous WP:SNOW cases. But in those cases, they can and should close them. That's what was missing. ʍw 20:28, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I can't predict what special circumstances could crop up where there might be an exception, so don't take this as gospel; but generally speaking, yes, that would be my take. equazcion ^(talk) 20:32, 14 Sep 2013 (UTC)

Something should probably be added to Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Ending RfCs noting that tag removal is "almost always done by the OP" in cases of non-formal closure (if that truly is the case). ʍw 20:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

It's more complicated than that.

Some RFCs are intended to resolve a dispute. Some are (really!) just requests for comments about an idea. Some RFCs are superseded by a second RFC that is better explained. When to de-list (or extend) is a matter of judgment. Fundamentally, the standard for assessing consensus is the same one you use when assessing any other talk-page discussion. If you can figure out consensus in a discussion that doesn't have an ((rfc)) tag at the top of it, then you can figure out the consensus in that same discussion when the rfc template is at the top.

One reason that we hint that closing the RFC early is the province of the OP is because we've had a problem with people in an active dispute trying to shut down RFCs precisely so that the OP is unable to attract other editors to the article. However, we're not setting a "rule" that only the OP should do this, because in an amicable situation, we don't want to have a big dispute over unimportant procedural stuff when everyone's satisfied with the content-related outcome. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

While the first half of your comment is common sense, the second half would only be known by those with significant background and experience in this area. Which is pretty much the feeling I get from this whole discussion: the answers are either common sense, or only known to those with enough background and experience that they wouldn't need to read anything at Wikipedia:Requests for comment. There are several 'background consensuses' (or, perhaps, unwritten rules) at work here that one could never divine from only the information on that page. I have no idea how it could be changed, or even if it should be changed, to reflect them.

Even so, this discussion has revealed everything I needed to know about RfCs. Thanks. ʍw 17:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I was going back over my talk page and found your comment about my ActiveWatchers script not working. It was indeed broken, and I just fixed it. Sorry to have neglected that for so long but I was mostly inactive for a while there. If it's still not working for some reason let me know :) equazcion ^(talk) 01:10, 15 Sep 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

I wish we could get that script used at the relatively new Page Information item. This page is my favorite example for why it's important to list the count of active users. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree, it would be a perfect addition to the page info listing. I'm not sure where to go to propose that external stuff on the tool server be brought over here and integrated (but bugzilla is my guess). equazcion ^(talk) 13:08, 15 Sep 2013 (UTC)

MZMcBride filed the request here. I just don't know if it will ever happen. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, just to let you know that I've updated your statement (19 Oct 2012) that read [my italics]:

Legality of mirrors and forks
Every contribution to the English Wikipedia has been licensed for re-use, including commercial, for-profit websites. Republication is legal, so long as the licenses are complied with.

I've amended this to read Copyright status of mirrors and forks...Republication is not a breach of copyright. As I see it, a possible problem with your original broad statement is that a court might deem republication to be illegal or actionable for reasons other than copyright, and it is not in our best interests to offer an open-ended guarantee of legality. In particular, the exemption in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act may not apply where a third party intentionally copies material from Wikipedia. If someone is defamed in a Wikipedia article, WMF is apparently protected by §230. If a third party who copied the article accepts liability, it would be undesirable to let them sue us because we have assured them that "republication is legal". I'm not a lawyer, so please undo this if you wish. - Pointillist (talk) 21:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer either, but your update sounds great to me. Thanks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

To User:WhatamIdoing. I write to report that user:Mrm7171 engages in disruptive editing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing). He engages in tendentitious edits on the occupational health psychology talk page and on the OHP page itself. He avoids efforts to build consensus. He resists the thoughts of other editors. He has pursued the goal of making OHP look like a subdiscipline of industrial/organizational psychology. He failed to reach that goal. Now Mrm7171 appears to be going in a very different direction. Almost an opposite direction.

The context is this. The second sentence of the OHP page informs the reader that OHP emerged out of the confluence of three disciplines, health psychology, i/o psychology, and occupational health. I think that sentence spells out the interdisciplinary origins of OHP sufficiently.

Earlier today Mrm7171 loaded up the opening paragraph of the OHP page with so many disciplines that it appears OHP is going hither and thither. If he can't win the battle in support of his view that OHP is a subdiscipline of i/o, he goes in another direction to fight a different battle, namely that OHP amounts to a hodgepodge of disciplines. If one line of attack fails, then he takes up another line of attack. He has been doing this dance ever since he joined Wikipedia.

He reverted my earlier edit which was aimed at keeping the opening paragraph straightforward. He insists on editing the opening paragraph such that OHP is made to look like a mixture of almost every social science plus industrial engineering and public health.

It would be like someone writing in the i/o page that i/o is a mixture of psychometric psychology, aptitude/intelligence research (e.g., Hunter and Schmidt), structural equation modeling, social psychology, economics, ergonomics, etc. Mrm7171 has to stop the disruptive edits.

Yes, sometimes people in public health produce research that is over interest to OHP researchers. Yes, sometimes people in social psychology produce research that is of interest to i/o researchers. So what. That is not the way to introduce a subject in an introductory paragraph.Iss246 (talk) 14:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I have posted a note on Administrator ItsZippy's talk page asking for help with a disruptive editor. I realized yesterday that Mrm7171 meets the criterion in that he is intimidating other editors, making them reluctant to contribute to the article because he/she will undo their work, and then engage in a long aggressive argument that generates walls and walls of text on the talk page, yet fails to accomplish anything productive. It has taken me four months to add 4-5 sentences, and each one was a protracted battle with this one editor. I have had no problems with any other editor, even when we had different apparent backgrounds and perspectives. Psyc12 (talk) 22:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Psyc12 and Iss246, I'm sorry for not responding sooner. I've been busy elsewhere. I doubt that ItsZippy will be able to solve the problem. I think you're going to have to pursue a topic ban, which could theoretically be done directly at WP:AN, but for someone who isn't well known (him, not you), it's really better to organize an WP:RFC/U. Then you can take the RFC/U page (a month from now) to WP:AN, and propose the TBAN there.

An RFC/U requires at least two people who have had the same difficulty with an editor, which you've obviously got. It's often helpful for the main people to discuss it in e-mail. If you want to do that, set up disposable email addresses at Gmail or something, attach them to your Wikipedia accounts, and then you can send e-mail to each other (or to me, or to anyone else with an e-mail address). You will need to collect good examples of the problematic behavior and discuss how to explain it. This can all be done onwiki, but I urge you to consider the value of a discussion first. (The point behind a disposable address is that you can abandon it afterwards, so you're not making a lifelong commitment to another address and another password.)

BTW, there are two 'forms' for a general user-conduct RFC/U, and you might find the second or "alternative" one more congenial. The forms are a little bit cumbersome, but since you're inexperienced with this, it will be easier to use a form than to create your own. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, perhaps iss246/psyc12 could consider simply discussing any issues with me and we try to resolve them in a civil manner? I completely reject these assertions. They are false. And I can provide strong evidence. I have recently made some well based edits, that other editors have commended. Other 'independent' editors like Richardkeatinge have also made well based suggestions that the article is very overloaded and bloated and psyc12 and iss246 won't allow anyone to reduce some of this unnecessary verbiage. I have accepted consensus on other points. But instead perhaps psyc12/iss246 could firstly discuss their concerns with me directly instead. That would be appreciated. I am more than open to such a discussion. Thank you. Mrm7171 (talk) 03:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The primary purpose of an RFC/U is to have a civil discussion that leads to lasting dispute resolution, so if they decide to proceed with that process, you will get your wish. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you whatamidoing. As I said, I am more than open to civil discussion on my talkm page, but these 2 editors instead go behind my back without any attempts to discuss their baseless, false allegations. I am sick of being falsely accused of bad faith and being personally attacked for no reason, quite frankly and ganged up on. I am just one, single independent editor. Recent edits i have made have also been commended by other editors, contrary to psyc12/iss246's false allegations of bad faith. Please read this:

"On the other hand, Mrm7171, I am very glad to see you removing un-necessary praise in Wikipedia's voice for quoted studies. If sources are of poor-quality, we shouldn't use them in the first place. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

And, as a general comment, this article seems to be overloaded with details about what exactly OHP researchers have done, and how they have done it. For example, I'd be happy to mention that OHP has used both qualitative and quantitative research methods, with a hatnote, but the two present sections on the subjects seem overblown. What do others think? Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC) I think Mrm7171 made some apt edits. I tip my hat to him. I'm not absolutely sure with regard to my thinking about the research methods section but on balance my thinking is that the section is helpful to readers because the section, which includes internal links, gives a reasonable idea of the tools OHP researchers employ when investigating the relation of psychosocial workplace factors to disease. Iss246 (talk) 18:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC) OK. However, to my eye, the section is not really what I'd find most useful in an encyclopedia, and were I to take to wikilawyering (perish the thought), I might think that it relies rather too much on primary sources. Will you indulge me, if I try a bold edit, by leaving it for a few days to get other opinions? Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:12, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

So, this is why I am concerned about being accused of bad faith. I am trying to make a better Wikipedia article through civil consensus, that is all. Thank you.Mrm7171 (talk) 04:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Last thought, forgot to ask you please. Would you mind commenting on Richardkeatinge's belief that the occupational health psychology article is very bloated and overloaded in the research and research methods sections. Your experience on Wikipedia articles would be valuable on the topic Richardkeatinge raised, directly above. Thank you.Mrm7171 (talk) 04:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

You are not accused of acting in bad faith. You are accused of being disruptive. These are not the same thing. It is not unusual for an extremely disruptive editor to be acting purely in good faith.

I do not have time to deal with this dispute right now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The above commendations for my editing directly above clearly do not show disrutive editing. The important issue raised by Richardkeatinge about the article being very 'bogged down' and 'overloaded' is what I asked for your comment on. Given that (Iss246/psyc12) are close friends outside of Wikipedia, and members of the same 'OHP' society and working in unison on their editing, could be seen as one single opinion. Myself and Richardkeatinge both 'independent' editors believe that the article needs to be streamlined and a lot of verbiage deleted. Given your extensive reply to (psyc12/iss246) above, and for the sake of civil consensus building, and on a productive topic, I just thought you may have an opinion on the issues Richardkeatinge has raised before changes are made now to streamline and reduce the 'overblown' sections in the article Richardkeatinge was talking about. Didn't want to make changes before other editors could state an opinion. Thank you. Mrm7171 (talk) 06:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

This problem here has nothing to do with Richard Keatinge's suggestions, which I responded to on the talk page. It has to do with the disruptive behavior of one editor, as I noted on ItsZippy's webpage. Psyc12 (talk) 14:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello again, WAID. Thanks very much for your support the other day. I meant to thank you at the time. You really are a blessing to the project and it's very important that you are here. I've been watching things since the rollout in July and think you've been doing a fantastic job. It's even more impressive considering all that you've had to endure. I know things have been very tough lately and I hope you are holding up well. I know I'd crumble if I were in your position. It takes a person of great strength and wisdom to be able to do what you've done and I'm really very thankful that your helping the Foundation and the project. It's very generous of you. I wanted to let you know that it means a lot to me and others to have you helping so much. Our projects benefit millions of people and it can't happen without fine upstanding people like yourself. Thank you ever so much for all your support. 64.40.54.151 (talk) 06:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I want to say that the editor you've been dealing with is actually someone who does good work. At the end of this, I want both of you to be happy here at the English Wikipedia. It's really just a case of Wikipedia being so complicated that nobody can keep up with all the "rules", especially since these weren't written out in a perfectly clear way. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Yup, agreed. 64.40.54.196 (talk) 04:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Just been catching up on some of the community discussions and thinking about how much I appreciate your dedication and especially your understanding of the big picture. I was thinking you need to change your user box from This user's Intelligence Quotient is annoyingly high to something more like This user's Intelligence Quotient is refreshingly high. Glad to have you here. Thanks for everything. 64.40.54.196 (talk) 04:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Can you offer your opinion on which photo would be better for the Rebecca Housel Infobox in this discussion? If you are unable to, I understand; you don't have to reply to this message. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 03:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi WhatamIdoing, my intention with creating the article was to help all parties. I'm concerned that you feel (at least part of it) isn't. How can I help? Widefox; talk 17:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi WhatamIdoing! I undid the redirect of Disposophobia to Compulsive hoarding as there obviously was no consensus about this, but I now propose to merge Disposophobia into Compulsive hoarding. Would you like to give your comment on the talk page? Kind regards, Lova Falk talk 17:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi WhatamIdoing, I wanted to see if you're working on anything interesting at the moment. You once said (a long time ago) that you wished I worked on more pages you've watchlisted (feel free to give me a few examples of interesting medical articles you had in mind) and I thought I would take you up on the offer. I just wanted to let you know that I would be happy to collaborate with you at any time now and in the future. Cheers! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tyler,

I'd love to work with you. I've had Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma on my mind for a while: it's the most common form of lymphoma, but it has no sections for symptoms, diagnosis, or even a list of all the subtypes. I don't know a whole lot about it, but it seems like the sort of thing that would have dozens of good sources available. In terms of messes that need cleaning, Postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome has been on my list because it tends to attract how-to advice from well-meaning people. And I've been hoping to get over to the current collaboration, which is Gastrointestinal disease and which needs some serious expansion. That last might be my priority (using the definition of priority as "what to do first").

What's on your list? What would you like to do? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:40, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Terrific, I'll take a look at those articles very soon and see if there is anything valuable I can contribute. Thanks for the swift and warm reply! =) TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello WaId,

Greetings from the east coast. On your recent community page: the developer community, and the donor community, are also considered part of the community by some people. Donors are considered active community members for many movements, including political and non-profit movements. Interestingly, while we have ways to communicate directly to both readers and editors (as a community), the mechanisms for communicating with donors are much more restricted and more rarely used. – SJ + 01:45, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi SJ,

Since The Community™ usually means The Community Specifically At The English Wikipedia™ (when the term is used here), I'm not sure that non-en.wp devs or non-en.wp donors are normally considered part of this community. But I encourage you to change the page to say whatever you want on this point. I'd at least like to have the possibility mentioned, since at minimum that's a variant that might be used in some discussions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I can see that. That's also why there are so many editor-dev conflicts: the devs don't think of themselves as 'outside' of the community, but they also rarely spend their time browsing and commenting on ANI. And conversely some active en:wp editors may not understand what the larger community looks like, and think that all devs are WMF staff, or non-editors, &c. &c. I'm still thinking about whether & how to improve that page, but wanted to leave a bug in your ear :) – SJ + 04:42, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

If you get around to it, it'd probably be a good idea to highlight the difference between "editors" (and other contributors) and "editors here". The WMF community includes not just all en.wp editors, but people at all languages of Wikipedias and at all non-Wikipedia projects. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I've drafted up an RfA at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/RfC to add Pending Changes to all BLP with few or no watchers, please feel free to sculpt it into a presentable state. Josh Parris 05:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I have a quick question about your addition to WP:Merging#Step 4: Close the merger discussion and determine consensus. I see that you proposed it at WP:Village pump (proposals)#Merge articles to be regulated, receiving support but no direct edits. Am I correct that both are entirely your own contributions? Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 05:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi there Waid, we need an expert opinion at the BP article. The BP company rep, Arturo, has a few questions about the information in the Health section of the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill section. His note on the talk page seems to explain things pretty well, but let me know. If you don't have time right now, perhaps you could suggest another editor that could help us out. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 16:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Gandydancer,

Of course I'm busy—just like you! But I've posted my suggestions. I think that you'll find the NEJM review especially helpful for general statements, and a review in a journal of that caliber is pretty much bulletproof as a source, which I hope will reduce some of the hassles you will have to deal with in the future.

As for who else might be able to help, there is someone who knows much more about toxicity than I ever will, but his name eludes me today. If I think of it, and if he's still an active editor, then I'll send him your way. Good luck, WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Where do I go to find someone to figure out my Christmas shopping? I can't even seem to figure out who we'll see this year. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Waid, I have looked through both regular sourcing and med sourcing guidelines and I can't see where the medical articles guidelines would apply to the BP (or other corporation) article. It's not like the article is giving health information that could be incorrect and cause harm. Thoughts?

As for Christmas shopping, I've just been giving money for the last few years and everybody seems happy with that. Gandydancer (talk) 14:19, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

MEDRS is generally taken to apply if you are making any kind of statement about human health. "A significant percentage" of Gulf residents reported mental health problems" is a statement about human health. "Parents reported physical or mental health symptoms among their children" is a statement about human health.

I'm not saying that this is ideal—one could equally read those statements as merely being 'what people said', just like people might say that they've seen flying saucers or people might say that they ate a sandwich for lunch—and it is awkward when you're dealing with a developing story like this, but this is the usual interpretation, and is the one you should expect if you need to file an RFC. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, well in that case I may have a problem with the article I wrote, Health consequences of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Would you be willing to go through it and let me know if you find a huge/med/or sm number of problems with it? Please don't think I'm just being too lazy to do it myself--for one thing, having written it, I'm perhaps a little too close to have good judgement, and for another, I'm really not sure how to judge what is acceptable and what is not. Gandydancer (talk) 17:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Realistically, 25 sources and more than two thousands words is more than I have time to review. One thing you might consider doing is seeing how much could be sourced to something stronger than a newspaper, and upgrading where reasonable.

At the same time, if you don't have active disputes underway, you might consider some strategic procrastination. Eventually, there will be more good scholarly review articles that say something more than the true, but not very helpful, statement that most of the research is still underway. You'll want to update the article then anyway, so I think you might want to remember that WP:There is no deadline for the intervening updates. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately there are plenty of ongoing disputes with no end in sight. I will do my best with the Health article, but don't be surprised if I'm back to pester you. In the meantime, if you think of a good sourcing expert that may be interested in spending a little time with me, let me know. What with BP on one side claiming that there are no long-term health effects, and several sources in disagreement, I can't see just letting it wait for more studies to come in. Gandydancer (talk) 18:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Waid, in case you are no longer watching the BP article, our company rep, Arturo, has left a message for you. If you don't have the time and/or interest, could you suggest someone that would take a look at the present Health section? It is a very difficult article in that there is little trust between the two opposing camps, the question of how MEDRS applies to a corporate article is hard to understand, and now we are using information from the BP website to argue against a primary study. Add to that, there are plenty of people that don't even want any health information in the article at all, which is hotly disputed by others... Gandydancer (talk) 19:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the clearer way to look at it is that MEDRS applies to "sentences" rather than to "articles". But what a mess you're dealing with. I may have an extra pair of hands headed your way. Unfortunately, 'tis the season for everyone to be busy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 16:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

May I have a further explanation of the relevant portion of WP:Advice pages? How does it reconcile with the idea that a group of Wikipedians can form a consensus anywhere, whether on the village pump or on a Wikiproject page or a talk page? WhisperToMe (talk) 12:41, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi WhisperToMe,

WP:Advice pages is a widely supported community guideline that says the members of a WikiProject cannot make a decision that is binding on multiple pages, especially over the objections of non-members. If you have a discussion about one article (or even two or three related ones) that happens to take place at a WikiProject's talk page (and with reasonable notice to the people working on the affected article), then that's fine. However, if you want to make a rule that affects many pages, then you need input from many people, not just from members.

This discussion can still take place at a WikiProject's talk page. But it should be structured as a WP:PROPOSAL to the whole community, not a discussion by and for self-declared members. What matters is who participates, not where the discussion happens. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

So I should ask the WikiProject to make a proposal at the Village pump for proposals? WhisperToMe (talk) 00:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi WhisperToMe, that's one option. The location of the discussion doesn't really matter, so long as it's advertised to appropriate pages. In this case, you might want an RFC and then notes at a handful of the most significant articles that would be affected, maybe a message at WT:Portal guidelines (you might want to leave a note there no matter what else happens) and WP:VPR, and maybe a message at WP:WPPORT (of course there's a WikiProject for portals). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:25, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:47, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Can you offer your opinion in this discussion regarding the better photo for an article Infobox? Thanks, and Happy Holidays. Nightscream (talk) 23:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

You had plenty of time to review the RFC before it went live, and removing one statement that you claim is biased while leaving the other, is ... biased. Now, since everyone involved has been getting along just fine, while you seem unable to review a BLP impartially and recognize that it is wholly uncited by an edit-warring SPA, would you mind not messing up what has been til now a friendly RFC? Thank you, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd be happy to have the other statement removed, too, and was just contemplating that when I saw your message.

If you believe that the presence of 13 inline citations constitutes being "wholly uncited", then I'm sorry to learn that we have different ideas of what zero means. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I know I have come in late to this discussion but I really must say after reading what happended that yes, I agree with Sandygeoria, stating your input was somewhat biased. I'm sorry whatamidoing, but yes, I have to agree with Sandygeorgia there.Just need to be careful sometimes you don't impose your vierw without considering ramifications. That's all. Please don't take it the wrong way. Mrm7171 (talk) 07:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you think happened. At the RFC that SandyGeorgia mentions, I did not "state my input" until two weeks after she posted this note here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Could you weigh in on an editorial dispute between Mrm7171 and me on how to edit the health psychology entry? Thank you Iss246 (talk) 15:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much whatamidoing for pointing out, and so boldly, that in your opinion, and based on the 1986 reference you highlighted for everyone's formal attention (occupational)health psychology is just a specialization within health psych. I've corrected the health psych article, based on your wisdom. Other articles may need to be now corrected though, to reflect your "weighing in" and proper Wikipedia guidance. Thank you for "weighing in" as requested by your friend iss246.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Several new proposals have been submitted at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014 since you last commented on it. You are invited to return to comment on the new proposals. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Thought you might appreciate some small balls to chew on. Cheers for all of your good work! Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Someday I'll have to try some bubble tea in the real world to find out whether it tastes as fun as it looks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I quite like it. Worth a burl... if only to just to find out what it's about. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi WhatamIdoing! I asked for some help about getting cleanup listings at the village pump (Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_122) but unfortunately I haven't been able to follow the majority of my correspondences up until recently. When I asked, you pointed me to a page about getting added ([5]), but in order to do that I need a username and password. I assume that you had a second step in mind that I wasn't able to ask about at the time. How might I go about finding someone who has the permissions?

As a sidenote, I hope you're well and would like to say that wherever I see you're edits, they're always constructive and useful. And you should definitely try some bubble tea. --LT910001 (talk) 15:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that your request at User talk:Svick/WikiProject cleanup listing is the right approach. Svick unfortunately hasn't been around much this month, so it may take a while for him to see it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm happy to wait. At a future point it would be wonderful if the WMF could make a standard set of tools available to wikiprojects, including popular pages & the cleanup listing tool. --LT910001 (talk) 02:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Chikungunya". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 04:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Structural Disorder requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 "Click here to 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. PamD 00:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. You may have noticed I reverted your recent and perfectly sensible edits to Help:Referencing for beginners. This was because (for some reason I couldn't determine) it broke the two screencasts, and I could only get them to work (in Firefox) by reverting your edit. If you have another go perhaps you could check out the screencasts before saving. Cheers.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:40, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

They work for me. Try refreshing the page.

The VisualEditor information is about six month out of date. There's currently no ref button in the toolbar, for example. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:22, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding creepy prohibitions, Do not use names that imply a sequence such as "a" ... "n". I believe that that was a problem at one time, back when a rather large variety of citing systems were in play. I agree that it was time it went. --Bejnar (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bejnar,

I don't remember seeing it in the guideline before, and it was added only yesterday. Perhaps it's on some other page, like Help:Footnotes? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:52, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

You're right it might have been at Help:Footnotes, but it is more likely to have been a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. It was several years back. In just looking around, not seriously trying to find it, I saw this recent discussion Wikipedia talk:Footnotes#Policy or guideline? --Bejnar (talk) 06:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I have opened a formal RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#Request for comment on the deprecation of left-aligned images under sub-headings,an issue on which you commented in previous discussion there. DrKiernan (talk) 09:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Service animal may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Requirements: Service Animals]. US Department of Justice. 12 July 2011. Accessed 28 January 2014))</ref> There is a broader definition for assistance animals under the US [[Fair Housing Act]] as

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Chikungunya". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 4 February 2014.

Hello whatamIdoing, we've talked in a few places before. Right now, we're talking past each other about whether edit-warring needs some new exemptions, or not, based on the Bbb23 actions at the Sheldrake page. You seem to think that I'm either not familiar with the context of the Bbb23 action, or that I'm not familiar with the content-dispute. I feel the same way about you, since I don't think we interpreted the situation the same way at all.  :-)   Rather than continue to flail on the policy-talkpage, I figured I would come here. What is your take on the content-dispute, in question? Are you under the impression that it is ongoing? What is your take on which sides exist/existed in the WP:BATTLEGROUND, and how many sides? If you'd rather keep this on the WP:EW talkpage, or move it to my talkpage, or whatever, or skip it, I'm flexible — just let me know what works for you. Please leave me a talkback (no watchlist), and thanks for improving wikipedia, it's appreciated. p.s. Except for WP:FLOW, sorry!  ;-)   But we can argue that another time. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't care about the content dispute in question. I care about a very active admin telling people that our policies authorize him to punish people for normal editing. If our policy is so badly written that an admin can claim (in good faith but perhaps not with a lot of thought) that any change whatsoever is "technically a revert", then we need to fix our policy. This remains true even if all his actions at that dispute happened to be perfect. We need to write that policy so that no admin can read it and come away with the impression that any change whatsoever is "technically a revert". WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Meh; preventing edit-warring and WP:BATTLEGROUND isn't punitive, it's just enforcing policy. Normal editing is simply not what was happening on that page, then or now, but if you don't care about the content-dispute... then I don't see how I can convince you of the surrounding context.  :-)   Similarly, the push to get the policy rewritten/clarified, is directly related to the content-dispute, and only incidentally to do with Bbb23, that I can tell (for most participants — yourself excluded).

  Anyways, although I didn't hang on every word of Bbb23, my interpretation of "change" is that it means "changing somebody else's stuff" aka SQL UPDATE of a sentence. I do not think "change" includes SQL INSERT of a sentence, because that would not modify any of the existing sentences (somebody else's stuff). From what I can tell, you are interpreting "change" as meaning, change-to-the-article-as-a-whole, which *would* include SQL INSERT... and I agree this is too broad. I would be happy to see that pure additions-aka-insertions of *fresh* (aka not "recently"-reverted in whole or in part) Reliably-Sourced sentences, without overwriting anything or deleting anything, is not WP:EW. Similarly, I'd call rearranging entire sentences (s1 s2 s3 ==>> s2 s3 s1) without fiddling with their innards, is harmless. But once we start talking about new exemptions for SQL UPDATEs and/or SQL DELETEs, then I get very worried.  :-) 74.192.84.101 (talk) 07:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

No, getting sanctioned because of your past behavior is a punishment. We have a policy against doing solely for retaliation or retribution (e.g., when the behavior has already ended), but that does not change the fact that people are being and do feel punished. Sanctioning on a person for edit warring clearly falls within the basic definition of the word: "a : to impose a penalty on for a fault, offense, or violation". Admins are squeamish about admitting it, but any kid with a dictionary can figure it out, and the people who are punished know what was done to them.

The difficulty with saying "any addition is never edit warring" is that repeated additions against consensus could count. Consider this: I add a paragraph to the lead of Earth talking about creation myths. You remove it; it's undue. I put something similar at the start of the ==Chronology== section. Some else removes it. I add it to the ===Formation=== subsection. You remove it. I add a sentence about it under ===Formation of life===. Someone else removes it. I add six long paragraphs to the ==Culture== section.

Am I edit warring to get this material into the article? I'm only adding things, and every addition is different. Your actions always revert to the same version: are you edit warring, but I'm innocent?

(There is also the trivial case: I add, you revert. We both then go through a series of simple UNDOes. My reversions have the effect of adding, and yours have the effect of removing. But we're both edit warring.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

We agree about sanctions being a punishment. We agree about what edit-warring is, in the abstract. But in the concrete, you don't see an (ongoing) edit war at the page Bbb23 went to, and I do. I can explain to you where the edit-war is "hiding", if you like, but you'll have to care about the content-dispute a little, and see beyond the narrow moment Bbb23 was involved. As for your point about a firm SQL INSERT rule being gamed, you are correct... but I hope you see that, the very fact that you found a hole, helps prove *my* main point, over on the WP:EW talkpage, namely, that any kind of firm wording-slash-definition-slash-exemption, whatsoever, will have loopholes that make abuse possible.

  That is the whole reason that WP:EW is somewhat vague and fuzzy, methinks. We leave it up to admin judgment, because firm rules (such as a hypothetical "Strong 3RR") are easily gamed. You disagree with Bbb23's admin judgment, in this particular scenario. You are wrong.  :-)   There was an edit-war, which was non-collaborative, and Bbb23 was trying to stop the madness. On the other hand, you are also right: Bbb23 was jumping in way too hard, going on gut instinct, when they should have slowed down. But the solution here is not to rewrite WP:EW, so that admins cannot make mistakes. That is an impossible goal, right? Mistakes will happen. In the long run, the solution is to fix RfA, so there can be more admins; methinks that is the only way to give our admins the *time* to take things slow, shoot second and ask questions first.

  But in the short run, adding a bunch of new "exemptions" to the WP:EW rules is just going to hamstring admins from preventing "contentious editing" and the related "tendentious editing". Your point about edit-warring to get material into (or out of) and article *is* the key point. That is what we are trying to define. But any sort of hard firm non-fuzzy definition will inherently have both false positives and false negatives; admins can still fall back on WP:IAR, but most are unwilling to do so nowadays, given the consequences of that approach. Therefore, I want to stick with the current definition, fuzzy and heavily dependent upon admin judgment.

  Don't get me wrong, there will still be false positives and false negatives! Admins are only human and they are busy-busy enough that mistakes are guaranteed to happen. But at least we only have *one* source of error (admin mistakes) thataway, rather than *two* sources of error (admin mistakes plus gaming the firm-and-thus-full-of-holes rules). Fuzzy is better, in this case. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The current situation resulted in an admin spouting nonsense and claiming that this nonsense was the community's policy. This is never okay. I don't fundamentally want to change the actual definition. I do want to make sure that the actual definition is sufficiently clear that no admin ever says again that "any change whatsoever" to a page is "technically a revert", because "any change whatsoever" is not "technically a revert". That's never been the definition, and never will be.

I agree that it's unfortunate that admins get so little community support (support of the kind that gives them the benefit of the doubt and stops people jumping to conclusions, not the sort that gives them barnstars for whacking opponents) that they are afraid to stop disruption. Keeping our major policies in such a fuzzy, unclear, poorly written condition that admins make up silly definitions is not going to empower the admins or engender community support for their actions. It will instead cause more distrust and make it far harder to find admins who are willing to deal with complicated situations.

(Edit warring isn't always over "material". I've seen a moderate dispute recently that focused on the (over)use of commas. In the past, before MOS:APPENDIX was being enforced by AWB, we had people edit warring over the location of the ==References== section. And the edit warring over MOS:DATE was legendary.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the lamest edit wars evah... I saw that page once.  :-)   As mentioned above, I think you are interpreting "any change" to mean the same as "any edit" ... which is not what WP:EW says ... whereas I was taking it to mean "any change to an existing sentence written by somebody else" ... which *is* pretty much what WP:EW says, right? But rather than go in that hermeneutic circle again, since we don't know Bbb23's mindset about that troublesome phrase, let's cut to the chase. What is your stance on pillar five? That is the epitome of fuzzy and 'unclear'.

  But it is also the keystone of an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, right? Because it means, nobody had to learn a bunch of rules to improve things around here, they can just skim the five pillars and get cracking on "improving the encyclopedia" whilst ignoring all the rules they know nothing about (having never read them!). If you insist on re-writing all our policies to be deterministic and clearcut and lucid, methinks they will become quickly become statutes, and the only people who will be (in practice) able to edit without getting ninja-reverted are the ones who have memorized our five bazillion P&G. We are, in fact, pretty terrifyingly close to this situation now without "firm" rules.

  At the end of the day, I don't want enWiki to become like deWiki. They don't have much disruption, sure, but they also don't have as good of an encyclopedia! Creating firm rules is one solution to helping admins stop disruption. I still think a better solution is staying the encyclopedia anyone can edit (WP:IAR retained aka no firm rules), and simply increasing the count of admins. Many hands make light work, and also, can better watch, each other, for silly actions, honest mistakes, correct actions that could, have used, a lighter touch, and so on. Where *did* all those commas come from??

  p.s. The change suggested by Mrm below strikes me likely to be a bit complicated; do you have any experience in the stress/fatigue/burnout literature, whether biz-oriented or academia-oriented? The two of us are a bit unclear how to proceed, and as you say, it seems unlikely others will show up to complain and/or cheer. TFIW. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 05:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy with IAR. I am also realistic enough to know that every written rule will be wikilawyered and willfully misinterpreted by all sides. My goal is to reduce accidental misinterpretations.

And WP:EW does not say that "any change to an existing sentence" is a "revert". It doesn't. It never has. That's the whole problem here. If I write Most people have eaten rice and you "edit" and "change" that to say Every day, more than 60% of the people in the world eat rice, and nearly all adults have eaten it at least once in their lives, according to the International Rice Growers Union", then you have definitely changed my sentence, but you have not reverted anything at all. Change ≠ revert, even if it is the same sentence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough; I think we understand each other now, and I greatly appreciate your taking the time to get there with me.  :-)   I agree about your SQL UPDATE being a pure upgrade which does not change the meaning significantly, and improves (assuming it is the-truth-the-whole-truth-and-nothing-but-the-truth) the encyclopedia. The trouble happens when you have pro-IRGU editors working on the same sentence with anti-GMO editors and pro-CORN editors and anti-FFA editors, all doing their level best to slant what mainspace says. That kind of friction-generating edit-environment drives away the beginners and the neutral, methinks.

  I think we can prolly firm up the definition of revert, as you are aiming for, and avoid accidental confusion amongst folks that read the policy-pages... but yes, the result will either be a lot more wikilawyer-gaming... or a lot more WP:IAR by admins in the discretionary-sanction-zones... or prolly both, depending on the participants at the article. Which means I'm still kinda against changes to WP:EW policy, as opposed to, say, changes to WP:BRD#Revert essay (which truth be told sees considerably more *actual* use than the policy-page!). Right now it says: "If you disagree with an edit but can see a way to modify it that results in a net positive rather than reverting it, do so." That sounds a lot like your IRGU-example, to me. Anyhoo, I'll think about what good language might look like, and if I come up with something you might like, I'll put it on the talkpage. Thanks as always for improving wikipedia, see you around. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi whatamidoing. When you get a chance could you have a quick look at the separate occupational burnout and burnout (psychology) articles. I think they should be merged, which was first proposed by an editor in 2010? If you and any other editors agree, how do I do it please? Mrm7171 (talk) 09:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mrm7171,

That looks like a reasonable candidate for a "bold" merge. The instructions are at Help:Merging and Wikipedia:Merging. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks whatamidoing. Will read through these guidelines. I would like to also seek other editor input on this proposed merge.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I've added the standard tags for you. If you're lucky, someone will comment. I wouldn't count on it. If you don't get any objections during the next week or so, then you can proceed with the merge. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again. Appreciate your help.Mrm7171 (talk) 04:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• I* commented, in my usual verbose style. I'm not sure whether Mrm will think that they were lucky.  :-)   In a nutshell, see fatigue and stress, we usually separate the medic-topic from the manager-topic. However, the medical-concept-of-burnout seems to be somewhat tentative, from what I can tell, so maybe a merge is appropriate... but if so, the merge should be of burnout (psychology) material into the occupational burnout#medical subsection, rather than the other way around. HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I need the help of a veteran editor like yourself on the industrial/organizational psychology talk page. Iss246 (talk) 02:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, WhatamIdoing. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.

Yobol (talk) 18:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi WhatamIdoing! You participated in an RFC/U concerning User:QuackGuru in 2011. There is a new RFC/U on for the same user at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QuackGuru2, and your input would be welcome. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 07:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't really have time for this right now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

It's the small things. A year ago you helped me correct some editing mistakes when another editor was raining on me. At the same time you invited me to the WP:MED project. It's been fun having good people to volunteer with and a meaningful mission to work towards. You're a good person. Thanks. Ian Furst Ian Furst (talk) 01:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Ian. I really appreciate it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Hey Zockernicky009 (talk) 10:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

The request for formal mediation concerning Chikungunya, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

You have helped write a significant portion of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Perhaps you'd be interested in weighing in on the above linked discussion, especially since you are a strong believer in WP:Preserve? Flyer22 (talk)

"....the specific rules for medicine-related articles...." the specific ambitions you mean — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.74.252.94 (talk) 15:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Presumably this refers to a post I made at Talk:Seborrheic dermatitis in 2008. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for using VisualEditor! Having editors use it is the best way for the Wikimedia Foundation to develop it into the best tool it can be.

While we always welcome general feedback (please report any issues in Bugzilla in the "VisualEditor" product or drop your feedback on the central feedback page on MediaWiki.org), the developers are especially interested right now in feedback on the special character inserter. This new tool is used for inserting special characters (including symbols like ₥, IPA pronunciation symbols, mathematics symbols, and characters with diacritics). It is intended to help people whose computers do not have good character inserters. For example, many Mac users prefer to use the extensive "Special Characters..." tool present at the bottom of the Edit menu in all applications or to learn the keyboard shortcuts for characters like ñ and ü.

The current version of the special characters tool in VisualEditor is very simple and very basic. It will be getting a lot of work in the coming weeks and months. It does not contain very many character sets at this time. (The specific character sets can be customized at each Wikipedia, so that each project could have a local version with the characters it wants.) But the developers want your ideas at this early stage about ways that the overall concept could be improved. I would appreciate your input on this question, so please try out the character inserter and tell me what changes to the design would (or would not!) best work for you.

Issues you might consider:

• How often do you normally use Wikipedia's character inserters?
• Which character sets are useful to you? Should it include all 18 of the character sets provided in the wikitext editor's newer toolbar at the English Wikipedia, the 10 present in the older editor toolbar, or some other combination of character sets?
• How many special characters would you like to see at one time?
  • Should there be a "priority" or "favorites" section for the 10 or 12 characters that most editors need most often? Is it okay if you need an extra click to go beyond the limited priority set?
  • How should the sections be split up? Should they be nested? Ordered?
  • How should the sections be navigated? Should there be a drop-down? A nested menu?
• The wikitext editor has never included many symbols and characters, like ℗ and ♀. Do you find that you need these missing characters? If the character inserter in VisualEditor includes hundreds or thousands of special characters, will it be overwhelming? How will you find the character you want? What should be done for users without enough space to display more than a few dozen characters?
• Should the character inserter be statically available until dismissed? Should it hover near the mouse? Should it go away on every selection or 10 seconds after a selection with no subsequent ones?
• Some people believe that the toolbar already has too many options—how would you simplify it?

The developers are open to any thoughts on how the special character inserter can best be developed, even if this requires significant changes. Please leave your views on the central feedback page, or, if you'd prefer, you can contact me directly on my talk page. It would be really helpful if you can tell me how frequently you need to use special characters in your typical editing and what languages or other special characters are important to you.

Thank you again for your work with VisualEditor and for any feedback you can provide. I really do appreciate it.

P.S. You might be interested in the current ideas about improving citations, too. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, you disagree with me about physics, but not about the Bieb? You must have a really warped sense of what's important in this world. ;-) Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC) (and since we're dealing with Serious Matters check out my new essay)

Hi TransporterMan,

I like your new essay; thanks for sharing the link. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi WhatamIdoing. Would you go to Mrm7171's talk page and comment on what I put there about my charge of POV? It seems to me that most of the problem with him/her is that he/she is trying to promote I/O psychology, and that's the root of much of his conflict with other editors. Thanks. Psyc12 (talk) 00:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Please be careful making baseless claims and accusations of bad faith psyc12 as you continue to do on other editor's talk pages instead of bringing a concern to me directly or through proper dispute resolution processes, citing diffs and actual evidence, instead of baseless, spurious charges to discredit me without any grounds for doing so. There is no conflict with other editors either. My objective edit history over the past month proves all of this. Apologies whatamidoing for responding on your talk page.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Mrm, asking for an opinion from another experienced editor is one of our "proper dispute resolution processes".

I don't unfortunately have time to look at this today. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you WhatamIdoing. No rush. Psyc12 (talk) 17:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry whatamidoing, I realise you have been very personally involved over a long period of time with these articles, and a friend of iss246. I just meant 'formal' dispute resolution if it was needed at all. I understand this to be help to resolve an issue by applying Wikipedia principles and policies from an entirely independent, uninvolved, neutral administrator or editors. Also rehashing the past is not helpful to anyone on any article, nor to the project itself, especially when editor behavior has changed based solely on objective edit history for over 40 days now. So I'm positive a simple issue over the 'see also' sections in articles can be resolved in a civil manner, either way. Thank you.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry it has taken me this long to respond Mrm7171's above comment. I dislike ad hominem remarks. In the many bits of text Mrm7171 has written, I lost track of the above. I am not a friend of WhatamIdoing. I respect WhatamIdoing. She is very smart. Neutral. Very capable. She pointed out errors I made early in my work on Wikipedia. And over time she answered technical questions when I posed them to her. The reason I posed them to her was because I learned that she had a great deal of technical knowledge about Wikipedia and is a gracious person who will answer technical questions. I add that WhatamIdoing has not been over-involved with articles such as the article about OHP and i/o psychology. That is all there is to it. Iss246 (talk) 04:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. You had seemed to me to be a calm, wise, fairly mature person, a literary type, probably a professional academic, possibly an a mature academic such as a book writer. Probably with grown up children. And (WMF) people, excepting the accountant and the lawyer, seem to be recently pimply, tending hyperactively enthusiastic, and not yet having achieved stable employment. So since you put on the suffix, I have been quite confused. Are my impressions very wrong? Are they completely wrong? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not an academic, and it's not my place to say about the rest of your very kind compliments, but thank you: kind words from people you respect are always welcome.

I'm a bit busy this week, but I'll answer your question when I can give it the attention is deserves. It's been an interesting experience, and I have learned quite a bit about the organization. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey WAID. Article is up for deletion. Should wait until it is decided upon before linking IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:05, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Than we have content like "Sodium bicarbonate supplementation can reduce myoglobin, and prevent exertional rhabdomyolysis." supported by this case study [6] which is not about the prevention of rhabdomyolysis at all but its treatment. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I killed the prod tag: neither "it's written by students" nor "it doesn't already use the ideal sources" are valid reasons for deletion. I fully expect it to be kept if it's sent to AFD: there are hundreds of reliable sources, and bodybuilders have requested a bigger focus on their version for years. Furthermore, "it's an orphan" is sometimes trotted out as another (invalid) excuse for deleting an article, so deliberately orphaning it, in the hope that it might be deleted, isn't really fair. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

09:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)