User talk:WhatamIdoing

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

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

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be auto-archived by if there are more than 6.

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Just wanted to take a moment to say how much I appreciate your contributions! Helping me find my feet in medical topics, always standing up for new users in community discussions, keeping an eye on a large swath of important medical articles. Thanks for all you're doing :). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:41, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words. I am always happy to see what you're doing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:41, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will second that, Cheers · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 17:04, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe

Maybe join us over at Talk:Zak Smith. Not my area of expertise. Polygnotus (talk) 21:21, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that I can help with that mess. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:59, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you. I am not sure I can either, and this rabbit hole is real deep. Polygnotus (talk) 22:01, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LISTGAP

You recently removed the wikitable formatting I was using to create an indent with {{Reflist-talk}}, and only wrote "WP:LISTGAP" in your edit summary.[1] Could you clarify how the wikitable fell afoul of WP:LISTGAP? Also, would you know of an alternate way I could add an indent on {{Reflist-talk}} in a way that would be acceptable? — AFC Vixen 🦊 13:38, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anything that breaks up the consecutive flow of lists (all * or all : in a row) is a LISTGAP problem. Unfortunately, AFAICT that includes {{reflist-talk}} pretty much no matter how you stick it in the middle of a discussion. When you're just listing sources, I'd suggest just listing them (i.e., remove the <ref>...</ref> and just make an ordinary list). When you're using them to discuss same article text – well, we're probably just going to have to tolerate a LISTGAP.

The main reason that I removed the table formatting is because there's no benefit to having a single long, narrow column of refs that everyone has to scroll past. On desktop/laptop devices, that leaves most of the screen empty. On a mobile device, it may not align with the amount of space on the user's screen (e.g., if they have a narrow screen and a large font size). As a general rule, it's best to minimize width-related formatting and let each person's browser figure out how to display it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:28, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would using an {{Outdent}} like this

and putting an asterisk before both of these lines still violate WP:LISTGAP? I'm thinking I could simply force a discussion back to the left of the screen to avoid a full-width {{Reflist-talk}} being placed in between three-, four-, five-, ect. indent messages, and confusing the order of discussion and making who's replying to who unclear. "[Leaving] most of the screen empty" was purposeful to avoid this, for the record. — AFC Vixen 🦊 03:36, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what it looked like. Why did you think that this huge expanse of empty space was going to help people figure out who is replying to whom?

I don't know for sure, but I have heard that the outdent template doesn't actually help with LISTGAP matters. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:01, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This might be what's causing confusion, then. Here's how it looked on my end,[1] which honestly makes more sense as the product of the two-column wikitable with a blank, small-width left column that I had wrote up. It appears identical to this on all the browsers and devices I use. — AFC Vixen 🦊 04:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A single-column table with formatting of

| style="width:20px"|

should not be capable of producing a full-width table. {{Reflist-talk|colwidth=20em}} by itself could have done that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:51, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, the point was to indent the entirety of {{Reflist-talk}} exactly like in the screenshots I linked, so that it's at the same indentation as my message. The normal : before a message does not work on {{Reflist-talk}}. |colwidth= only creates columns within the reflist. Please understand that I'm trying to achieve what's exactly depicted in the screenshots. — AFC Vixen 🦊 05:02, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, I think that if you wanted to achieve that, you shouldn't have used the <ref>...</ref> tags at all. If you had no little blue clicky numbers in your first comment, then you wouldn't have needed a reference block. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:19, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{|
| style="width:20px"| 
| {{Reflist-talk|colwidth=20em}}
|}

I guess I'm also confused as to why you're describing this as a "single-column table", when it's clearly two columns. If I were to turn on the wikitable class and put just plain text in the cells, you can clearly see it's a two column table:

A	B

— AFC Vixen 🦊 05:20, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. I misread the formatting. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:55, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Find

Not sure how I would find these people you talk about. Do you have opinions? Efficacity (talk) 03:11, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Has anybody agreed with you? If so, then that's the person to talk to. If not, then it might be best to just give it up as a Sisyphean task. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:02, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you think of anything other than that you may view yourself as being a yeoman. I think "this task" as you put it is slightly doable with you and one other person. Efficacity (talk) 05:37, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that telling editors not to put the name of a criminal in an article about their crime is a bad idea.

If you want to create a rule telling editors to do this bad idea, you should work with people who think this is a good idea.

You've already had several discussions about this now. If, at this point, you don't know the name of any editor that thinks this is a good idea, then you should give up on this bad idea, because you will do a lot of work, only to find that all the editors reject your proposal and you have wasted all of your time and effort. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:59, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you missed the point. I have said mentioning the perpetrator of these incidents is alright. What is not is emphasizing references to them such as bolding. Efficacity (talk) 17:09, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And if you don't know the name of any editor who agrees with you yet, then I think you should give up on this idea, because zero support now = failed proposal then. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:11, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found someone else and there could be quite a number of others. Efficacity (talk) 17:14, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Go talk to them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:25, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you agree on some of what is being proposed, that would be helpful. It looks like you contribute often at the village pump. Is that right? Efficacity (talk) 21:43, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Hello! Please keep edit summaries objective and respectful. Saying people are "whining" is not appreciated. Thanks. — W.andrea (talk) 23:55, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would you rather that I said some editors "complain in a childish or petulant manner"? I think you've been editing long enough to know that's the reality.

You should go self-revert, because when someone follows a shortcut, they're supposed to be able to see the hatnote for that specific shortcut. Putting the hatnote higher in the page doesn't get the right information to the right person. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:20, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather you didn't mention it at all, since it's not relevant to the edit. Your new edit summary is much better, thanks!

I'm fine with keeping the hatnote next to the shortcut, but I still think you misunderstood my original edit. As I wrote, WP:ONUS in fact redirects to the section, not the paragraph. So I moved the {{redirect}} tag to the spot where WP:ONUS actually redirects to (the section). I would have moved the {{shortcut}} too, except that it's specific to that paragraph. Perhaps WP:ONUS should be retargeted to the paragraph (e.g. Wikipedia:Verifiability#WP:ONUS). It doesn't matter to me, I'm just putting it out there.

— W.andrea (talk) 14:03, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have retargeted the redirect. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PAYRATES

WP:PAYRATES. How do you like me now? :D ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 11:57, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I like it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:59, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Timeless, forever relevant. Thx for your improvements. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 16:16, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind an example pay slip for United Kingdom - Salaried (Americentrism bad), but I wouldn't know how to do that. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 16:19, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the typical UK pay slip looks like, either.

I added a custom hatnote to Wikipedia:Scam warning. If you hate it, then remove it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:41, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hate it, so I removed it. It's a humorous essay, and you're killing the buzz with serious stuff. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 19:53, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"This essay isn't meant to be taken seriously." That would include any hatnotes. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 19:59, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had some concerns about killing to buzz, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:04, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I think we get each other. Alice's Restaurant. ...he took out the toilet paper so I couldn't bend the bars, roll the toilet paper out the window, slide down the roll, and have an ess-cape. And father-rapers. Still killing me after 55 years and about a hundred listens. Arlo will be missed by many. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 20:22, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You could set up a whole table of base pay rates, using Wikipedia:Service awards. "Most Plusquamperfect Looshpah Laureate" has a ring to it, doesn't it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:34, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll think on it. Right now it's pure, concise (one-minute read), polished to a high sheen, and damn near perfect (see latest). I've about run out of even the tiny improvements. I'm reluctant to mess with it at this point, but that could change. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 10:55, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandruss, I've been thinking about Alice's Restaurant and a hypothetical List of restaurants in songs. Imagine that it's a bare list of names (red, blue, and unlinked together), with nothing cited. This is below-standard work, of course, but: Should we encourage tagging editors to focus on content that realistically might be wrong/unverifiable? Should we say that the best practice in such cases is to go to the linked article, find a source (if any) there, check it out, and copy it over? Or should we treat them all the same, as if something that can be verified by clicking through to the Wikipedia article is equally bad as something that will require a determined search?

(I've also got the Mercedes Benz (song) on the brain today.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:12, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it's not supported by a reliable source, it would stay out. Similar to what we're doing at Paraprosdokian. Beyond that, you're above my unpay grade. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 19:20, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not cited and someone wants to CHALLENGE it, then it stays tagged or removed.

I think my question is more like: Should we ask mass tagger–blankers to focus on the stuff that's potentially problematic, instead of the stuff that is merely in technical violation?

Or even: For a simple list like this, is the best practice to copy a source from the linked article instead of tagging/blanking the material? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:39, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not cited and someone wants to CHALLENGE it, then it stays tagged or removed. - Not sure I follow (there's my unpay grade, again). It goes without saying that unchallenged content will stay in. What made you think I was the best choice for a sounding board on this? ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 19:45, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of you because I was thinking of "Alice's Restaurant". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:21, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh of course. The connection between Alice's Restaurant and proper handling of a list article. LOL. Yes sir Officer Obie, I cannot tell a lie. I put that envelope under that garbage. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 20:25, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox source reliability

Hi, WhatamIdoing. Just so we don't accidentally duplicate effort, I wanted to let you know I am building Template:Infobox source reliability, per a suggestion of yours at WT:RSP. More fields coming, so I labeled it 'under construction', and the /doc is incomplete. Doesn't mean you can't try it out, just be aware that something might break until it stabilizes. I'm not very knowledgeable about Infobox construction, so I'm learning as I go, but the UX and optics may not be as appealing as one might like. Feel free to add feedback to its Talk page, and after I take down the construction banner, to edit it as you wish. The only page that uses it so far, is Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/all/California Globe, also under construction. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 05:18, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'd been thinking about trying out a direct use of Template:Infobox, with custom labels. I'll look at yours later (today, I hope). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:53, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It will certainly need more work, but I've removed the 'under construction' tag for now. You can see it in use at four converted landing pages; they are the ones tagged with the ⓘ icon at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Index (two B's, and two C's). If you want to play with changes to the template, please use its sandbox. Your feedback would be welcome, either at Template talk, or at WT:RSP, or here.

My next step is probably to create a preload file for an Edit template link, to help streamline conversion of the landing pages from a single table row to whatever the new format will look like through semi-automation. I think your Infobox idea will play a big part in that, so it would be wise to get the Infobox, as well as whatever suggested landing page layout we want somewhat stable, so that when we start converting using an Edit preload, we won't have to go back and change them all again when the format changes. Which isn't to say some format is inviolate, either; but it would be good to have a reasonably stable layout we are happy with as jumping-off point before starting conversion of lots of pages. I recently became aware of Module:Params, which looks somewhere between daunting and scary, but it may be of assistance in creating a more powerful preload page than I am used to, which might allow parameterizing parts of the preload so we could substitute in certain tokens, such as, say, domain names into parts of the preload text. If it can do that, it would speed conversion even more, so it's worth looking into. Mathglot (talk) 09:12, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As you saw, I put together an example at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/all/Deutsche Welle. The first paragraph is a simplified version of the article's lead. The simple summary of the discussion is word-for-word from RSP (even though, in that instance, I don't really like it).

Now I'm off to look at your infobox, so I can see what we did differently. (I didn't want your ideas to influence mine.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:10, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just passing by. Not sure if it is helpful, however the {{Preload}} template uses Module:Params to append preload arguments to the edit URL. So, to treat all positive numeric parameters as preload arguments this should do:

{{#invoke:params|sequential|backpurging|0|0|filling_the_gaps|setting|ih|&preloadparams%5b%5d{{=}}|magic_for_each_value|urlencode|QUERY}}

. For any other question about the module I should be able to help. --Grufo (talk) 21:18, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MAHA mayhem

Sorry to trouble you, I'm just a wee editor and I saw a couple of your recent posts. Would you mind having a look over here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tylenol_(brand)&action=history? Editors big and small seem to be taking a chainsaw to the article in disputes over the recent acetaminophen news, and my call for consensus on talk was promptly ignored by one individual, and I think another may be waving a MAHA study at me. Having recently received a warning for edit warring in a vandalism incident, and with fish much bigger than me involved, I will likely withdraw now. Thanks Patternbuffered (talk) 00:08, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the page has been restricted to experienced editors, and that there's an agreement that Trump's sloppy use of the brand name, when he means the drug regardless of what name it's sold under, should be addressed on other pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:32, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hey there, Just wanted to send you a thank you note regarding your comments. In particular "I strongly encourage whoever wrote the "religious and philosophical" principle to read our article on Non-science and then correct the self-contradiction in that principle. It's ironic that this is an echo of the novel legal definition of philosophical belief in the UK Equality Act 2010, which is the very thing that set this train in motion and the reason why any sincerely held belief in the UK is now fair game, no matter whether it stands in conflict with other human rights on discrimination, and what paved the way for what was the locus of the case, versus the rest of the worlds legal frameworks that intentionally leave it undefined to be able to balance it against other human rights principles to be able to restrict philosophical beliefs that are out of proportion with human rights. Here's to hoping that PD 11 doesn't pass as it is like you pointed out.

While we didn't always agree on things, I always appreciated your thoughtful approach. Wishing you all the best. Life is better with cookies, Here are a few to share. Raladic (talk) 03:23, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the cookies.

I think that PD11 could be re-written to say something sensible (e.g., perhaps it might refer to "healthcare topics" instead of "scientific topics"), but I'm unhappy with the current version, especially because it says that articles shouldn't include non-scientific content in the second sentence and then says that non-scientific content can be included in the very next sentence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:36, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queer Theories vs Transhumanism/Transfeminsm

I saw you mention "the idea that gender identity should have primacy over biological sex and gender expression, came out of Queer Studies". I agree that these ideas are based on philosophy, not science. But the philosophies at play are Transhumanism and Transfeminism, though you might consider that horribly pedantic.

Queer theory in the 90's said something different: Gender is a performance, when you go to sleep at night, you don't have a gender. It's something you do, not something you are. Queer people, (meaning Gay), "queer gender" by not playing along by gender roles, thus, making it easier for everyone else to break those rules too. This is a simplistic explanation, they get really deep into the postmodern ideas that "words change reality" and therefore "performance changes reality". But this was all about social rules and roles and didn't have anything about body modification or legally changing ones sex on government documents, you find that elsewhere.

That idea that gender should replace sex comes from Martine Rothblatt to justify Self ID Law. Rothblatt published "The Apartheid of Sex: A Manifesto on the Freedom of Gender" in the 1990s. The 2nd edition is "From Transgender to Transhuman: A Manifesto On the Freedom Of Form". The idea in the book is that dividing humans by sex is oppression, and for humanity to be free of oppression, people must be allowed to "explore" their gender, which is a spectrum. Then, they report this gender to the government, and it legally becomes their sex. In this framing, only "bona fide" medical purposes would be an exception. People usually classify this as Transhumanism, because the idea in the book is to use being transgender as a way to solidify body modification as a human right in law... to usher in the future of human evolution. The book is extremely influential and people use the ideas in this book constantly in arguments, without referencing it directly.

But the name everyone knows is Julia Serano. You'll find in academia in the 2000's, there was a real push to read minority view points in academia, and everyone starting readying Whipping Girl and Excluded. She is considered a transfeminist. I think people try to argue Serano's "subconscious sex" as a scientific fact or mainstream position, they just don't use her terminology when talking about it. But she rejects the "mind/body" separation of Rothblatt (In her book, Excluded), or the idea that Gender is Performance from Queer Theory [1]. She's considered a Transfeminist, you can read about her ideas here: (Whipping_Girl#Intrinsic_inclinations_model)

Sorry to write such a long comment. The ideas are philosophical, and honestly these ideas are the fringe ones, and shouldn't be treated as mainstream positions. I've accepted that it will just take time for people to step back and examine them critically, but it's frustrating we can't just report, neutrally, on the topic on Wikipedia. Denaar (talk) 12:44, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind long comments.

I've read that the philosophical idea that gender should have primacy over sex came out of queer studies in the 1970s, which appears to be two decades before transfeminism existed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:54, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of gender as performance actually dates back to feminist writing from the late-1940s. FYI. Simonm223 (talk) 17:59, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Freud was talking about the sociological meaning of 'sex' in 1905, and that's what we would call gender now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:10, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request

Hi, I see you removed BilledMammal from Wikipedia:Feedback request service, do you think it might be worth doing the same for SMcCandlish until they're back so their talk page doesn't get clogged up? Kowal2701 (talk) 23:08, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kowal2701, that's probably a good idea. You can do it yourself. Just leave a nice note for him so he'll know what happened and can revert it when he's back. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:14, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Images and the Graphics Lab

Hi. You might recall this response of mine to a comment you made at WT:RSP about needing a screenshot about the PEIS limit, and I suggested an annotated image or illustration of some sort and mentioned the WP:Graphics Lab. Just wanted to mention that I recently needed a "broken table" icon to help illustrate the message now visible at the top of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/1 and the other numbered subtables, and I think they did a great job, don't you? It's an iterative process, so you get to give feedback and see updated images, until you get something you like. See archive. I bet they could come up with something great for you, if you describe what you have in mind. Some of the volunteers there also have a creative streak, and if you don't know exactly what you are looking for, just describe the context of where it will be used, and let them try to imagine something. Some of them just like to execute precise requests, so it depends who's around when you ask. Mathglot (talk) 01:06, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I gave a description to Chat GPT, asking for a textual description of a diagram suitable to pass to GL, and here's what it came up with:

Text describing an image which could be passed to Graphics Lab as a request

Diagram concept: “Wikipedia page expansion process and the PEIS limit”

Title: Post-expand include size (PEIS) — how template expansion fills the post-expand buffer

Overall layout: horizontal flow left → center → right.

Left panel — “Wikitext source”

Box heading (no styling inside heading): Wikitext (page source)

Inside the box, show short example lines of wikitext (use clear, normal typeface, no special characters):

{{Infobox}}
{{Navbox|name=…}}
{{Citation|…}}
{{LongTemplate|param1=…}}
{{#invoke:Module|function}}

Small caption beneath the box: “Templates, transclusions and parser calls in the page source.”

Center panel — “Template expansion machine”

A stylized funnel or machine that takes short template calls on the left and outputs much larger expanded text to the right.

Above the machine: a meter (gauge) labeled “Expanded size”. The gauge should show needle moving right as expansion increases; optionally include units (illustrative, e.g. bytes) or a caption “grows as templates expand”.

On the body of the machine put the label “Template expansion”.

Optional small arrows showing growth (small widgets → big blocks).

Right panel — “Post-expand buffer / PEIS”

A vertical rectangular “buffer” (tank) labeled “Post-expand include buffer (PEIS)”.

Show a horizontal capacity line with text beside it, e.g. “Capacity (illustrative only): 1 MB” — or leave the numeric amount blank and say “illustrative capacity — site default varies” if you prefer not to give a hard number.

Fill the bottom portion of the tank with a coloured block (e.g., blue) showing “Expanded content used.”

A red horizontal line at the top of the fill labelled “PEIS limit — further expansion blocked” (or “Limit reached — additional templates excluded”).

Above the red line, show a few small grey boxes labelled “Excluded templates / skipped expansion” (these visually sit above the red line to indicate they were not included).

Small caption under the tank: “When the post-expand buffer is full, additional templates/transclusions are not included in the final expansion.”

Optional small continuation (bottom-right) — “Parser output / HTML rendering”

A small icon of a web page or HTML page labeled “Parser output (HTML render)” with an arrow from the buffer to the page icon.

Add a small note: “Rendering proceeds with expanded content available; templates excluded by PEIS are omitted from expanded wikitext.”

Legend / callouts

Include 3–4 callout boxes that explain:

What PEIS means (short): “PEIS = maximum size of the expanded wikitext after all templates/transclusions are processed.”

Why it matters: “If page expansion exceeds the PEIS, some templates are not expanded — long templates (navboxes, transclusions) commonly contribute.”

Practical outcome: “Large pages may silently omit expansions; editors may hit parser errors or see missing elements.”

Design notes

Clean vector (SVG preferred), high-contrast labels, readable sans font (no script or decorative fonts).

Use neutral colour palette (blue for filled portion, red for limit line, grey for excluded items).

Include accessible alt text and a short caption for Wikimedia Commons.

License: CC BY-SA 4.0 (or CC BY-SA 3.0 if you prefer).

What do you think? It sounds a bit busy to me, so I would probably simplify it, but this is a starting point. Mathglot (talk) 01:24, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you need one image with three parts, or three images that you can display side by side? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:27, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This was an attempt to fill your need for some kind of image illustrating PEIS, so it's whatever you want. This might not suit your needs at all, and maybe you want something completely different in conception; I was just trying to brainstorm some ideas of how to render the PEIS concept. I like the left-to-right progression, the idea of a meter with a needle, some kind of container filling up, an then getting exceeded and what happens then (some templates not getting expanded). It's a somewhat complicated diagram description(but not anywhere nearly as complex as some others), but it's a somewhat complex concept, so I think a three-part, L-R design is appropriate. But how would you design an illustration for it? Mathglot (talk) 03:08, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's important to have the three bits, and I like your idea of a left-to-right progression. I like the idea of a Fuel gauge. I think what I'm saying is that if it'd be simpler, I don't care whether it's one big 800px-wide image or three images set side by side with {{multiple images}}. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:14, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. No, I think we should stick with the idea of one diagram, which the GL folks can certainly do, even if CGPT cannot. While we've been talking, I've been trying to get it to build an image, and I think it has been bumping up against its own internal limits, as it has been doing some strange things in the first three attempts; I'm making one last try. But I think if you just describe in words what you are imagining, the GL can build something. And then you can iterate, getting the design, sizes, style, and captions just right. It's kind of a joint process, and a fun one. It's also a fun challenge to describe, purely in text, the image of something you have in your head, and get that into someone else's head. Reminds me a bit of the fun behind the children's game Charades. You should totally try it. Or if you'd rather I initiate it, I'm happy to. Mathglot (talk) 03:48, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather that you initiated it. (They might want a couple of links to already-broken versions.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:37, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Government databases

Responding here because I don't want to get in to bludgeon territory on that discussion thread, but:

"Reputable and authoritative government sources, such as the US Census..."

Our worst cases in this field all involve "reputable and authoritative" government-published databases, including those of the US government (the Iranian census, GNIS, GNS). We had to introduce an exception explicitly for US Census Bureau-designated places because otherwise the outcomes we were getting otherwise were ridiculous.

So yeah, whilst it's an attractive-sounding idea to say "Just use government documents", once you look at what these documents actually say you start to realise that it really isn't that simple. FOARP (talk) 09:08, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like some of these aren't actually "reputable".

Think about this concept also from the POV of organizations. If the national government produces a report on the local schools or the local hospitals, the resulting source is (usually—devil's in the details) sufficiently at arm's length to be considered Wikipedia:Independent sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:22, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Emotionally focused therapy

Is this even fixable? AfD or hacksaw? I dunno what it is but its not an encyclopedia article. Thanks, Polygnotus (talk) 21:01, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And 50 editors since 2007. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 21:19, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It needs a lot of work, but, Polygnotus, you're fighting a newbie. Back off for a couple of days, and come back to it later, after their attention may have waned. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:33, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is too far outside my wheelhouse to fight. Kinda hoping to dump this on someone who knows about such things. In its current form its very chaotic and hard to follow. Thanks, Polygnotus (talk) 21:35, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also asked Lova Falk if they're willing to take a look. We have a FA for every ammo type used in recorded history but articles on forms of therapy are lagging behind. Polygnotus (talk) 21:33, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology would be appropriate, but it's not a very big group, so there might not be any response.

Markworthen (whose User:Markworthen/Feeling misunderstood and attacked is worth a read) is another useful editor for sorting out psychology articles, but he's been off wiki for a few weeks. Iss246, do you happen to know anything about Emotionally focused therapy? It looks kind of far from your usual area. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:38, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I left a cry for help at WT:PSYCHOLOGY; you never know. The draft appears to be better than the article. Polygnotus (talk) 21:42, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with emotional focused therapy (EFT) or research on its efficacy. The two psychotherapies I am most familiar with are cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and interpersonal therapy (IPT), specifically with regard to their efficacy in helping people suffering from high levels of depressive symptoms. The research reports on clinical trials involving those two therapies indicate that they are very effective. I think there is more evidence favoring CBT and IPT in the realm of depression than there is for any other type of psychotherapy. CBT has sometimes been used in combination with pharmacotherapy to help people suffering with treatment-resistant depression. CBT is also very effective in helping people with excessive anxiety but I am not familiar with IPT and anxiety problems. I wish I could help you more EFT. Iss246 (talk) 02:34, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. You can find it at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Repetitive Ad Hominem Attacks. The purpose is not to punish but to ensure we are all on the same page. Note that this isn't necessarily about you, but some of the other users.

@WhatamIdoing Wikieditor662 (talk) 02:08, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to ping people on their own User_talk: pages; it doesn't do anything. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:36, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It says at the ANI that this is necessary and that pinging alone isn't enough. Wikieditor662 (talk) 12:01, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It says at the top of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents that the message is necessary. Pinging someone on their own User_talk: is pointless. What the ANI note means is that it's not sufficient to ping someone on ANI itself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:03, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right, my bad. Consarn already told me that you're already pinged when messages on your talk page. So yeah, Mea Culpa with that one. Wikieditor662 (talk) 15:40, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Next time, you'll be able to save yourself a little effort. :-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:17, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your help. Let me know if you need anything else! Wikieditor662 (talk) 18:22, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hello, sorry to bother you- I wanted to ask if you would like to review my FAC of Hunter Schafer? I promise to do any review/expansion of an article or two, as you like, if you want? HSLover/DWF (talk) 17:16, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I can't promise to do that. Good luck finding reviewers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:01, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RfC by multiple people?

Regarding this. You wrote it, and I've never heard of an RfC by multiple people. No offense intended. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:53, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the first draft, but others had a significant number of changes. For example, the first sentence was written by someone else.

Also, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment#cite note-2: Names are not required (have never been required; used to be prohibited) on the RFC question. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:05, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's news to me. Thanks. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:10, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. (This place is too big for anyone to know all the details.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:25, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Emily Neves § B-class/GA-class efforts

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Emily Neves § B-class/GA-class efforts. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:29, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in pop culture/entertainers. Good luck with your project. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:18, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:20, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ACK

WAID, this happened to me once before, and I have a vague memory that you gave me the cluestick. On my iPad, I hit the wrong button somewhere, and I suddenly have a huge offensive bunch of colored gobble-dee-gook in edit mode. I'm seeing templates in purple, wikilinks in blue, varying font sizes ... giving me a headache to run screaming from the building. I think I did this once before and you told me I had either clicked on Beta something, or somehow switched which editor I was using. I've always used the old plain vanilla editor ... how can I get back? This is awful on old eyes, and now I'm making even more mistakes than usual, and in trying to fix it, I may have messed up some other setting in my Preferences, because I keep going back to old versions or something to do with Recover mode. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:43, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia, it's possible that you have something in your prefs screwed up, but the more likely scenario is that you bumped the "syntax highlighting" button in the toolbar. To fix:

Open any page/article.
Look in the toolbar for the "highlighter pen", which is in between the "Reference" book icon and the word "Advanced".
Click that button to make the angry fruit salad go away.
Optionally, if that solved your problem, go to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) and ask someone to write you a user script to hide that button, so you'll never be able to click on it again.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:55, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that was it ... thank you ever so much. Nasty fruit! Now to figure out what other setting I may have messed with ... thx again! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:54, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:57, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All set; thx again! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:54, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Make a mental note that if it ever gets turned back on (e.g., if resetting all your prefs does that – I don't know if it does, but it might), then you need to remove that line from your .css file, so you can see the button to turn it back off, and then restore the line so you can't accidentally click it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:03, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Cf. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bilseric#26 October 2025. (I didn't notice I was editing in the mode where @ mentions didn't work.) --Joy (talk) 09:29, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

not she

I happened to notice you referred to me as she, but it's actually he. Sadly my nickname predates my understanding of its implications :) --Joy (talk) 20:46, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. Joy strikes me as a good nickname. BTW, I've occasionally edited people's comments to correct pronouns for myself, and nobody's ever complained. I don't bother when I've been addressed as "Respected sir" or the like, but a single character doesn't seem to irritate anyone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:34, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've tended to avoid editing other people's comments, and just let them know for the future. I thought it was a fine nickname, too, but it has occasionally confused people over the years :) --Joy (talk) 08:58, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AeroRoutes at WP:RSN

I have started a new discussion on whether Aeroroutes is a reliable source because i am feeling that there are things missed out that werent mentioned in the first one, if you wanna join the discussion to mention on if its a reliable source feel free to do so, the discussion is at WP:RSN#WP:AEROROUTES Metrosfan (talk) 11:26, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tesla

What now? Joy had bullied everyone to go away from the discussion. He accused me of being a sock of an user who had viewpoint 180 from mine (slandered me to other admins to agree with him) and he expected noone to implement the consensus. Now when you have implemented it, he started bullying you to back off , like it's your consensus, not everyone's from the discussion.

He's NOTHERE, POV pushing and forum shopping. You mentioned that further posting about Croatia should be removed, and here we go , he's allowed to do it? He's the one starting discussions over and over again until he gets what he wants. The very same thing he's accusing others.

How about admitting the he's the one here pushing Croatia to article against everyone. The same Trimpops and Bilserich did and got banned. He's just not backing off. Keeps deleting comments of IP who he can push around, etc. That's why I asked uninvolved editor to close and now it's not enough for him. He keeps bullying you to loose interest and back off.

78.2.209.226 (talk) 17:31, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the answer to "What now?" is that you do nothing.

I have never said that Croatia should be removed from the whole article. What I have said is that if editors can't come to an agreement that "Smiljan, Austrian Empire" is functional in the infobox, then they should consider (NB: not are required to, just think about) removing "Smiljan, Austrian Empire" from the infobox only.

I make this recommendation because this is Wikipedia's standard way to approach infobox contents. If the particular detail seems nuanced or too complex, then you leave it out of the infobox and address it, using sentences and paragraphs and sometimes even whole ==Sections==, in the body of the article.

What I do next is look up Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Balkans or Eastern Europe and think about whether the benefit of stopping the endless bickering would be worth the effort of getting Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Extended confirmed restriction added for that one article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:56, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No I wasn't speaking about article body here. Just the infobox. I agree with what you said just now. OK, I'll back off. But too late for my comment on the page where I suggested to seek closure review. That would be correct thing to do, not to bully you to loose interest. 95.168.118.32 (talk) 18:01, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BDW , you don't know what happened a year ago with Trimpops. That's why Joy is acting like this. I was Ip 95 in that discussion. 95.168.118.32 (talk) 18:04, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you that I am capable of reading a talk page. I completely disagree with your belief that Joy is bullying me and your belief that Joy wants me to lose interest in the discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:12, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but at least we agree that he should seek closure review if he disagrees with the consensus and not do what he is doing now. That's the correct way to proceed. Let another uninvolved editor review it, if he thinks you haven't assessed the consensus correctly. I'm not being unreasonable here, am I? 78.2.209.226 (talk) 18:19, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I did with Trimpop's discussion. I've asked for a review. 78.2.209.226 (talk) 18:21, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But, let me ask you. Why banning people to discuss with Extended confirmed restriction. First of all, it's not constant endless bickering. There's were a few discussion in the last 10 years. It's not endless. Wikipedia is made to discuss and not to have one permanent consensus. Sometimes new sources appear. Sometimes people have better arguments. Let people discuss if they want. Wikipedia is not Joys personal project. If he is present for 20 years and gets annoyed if he sees similar discussion from 10 years ago , so what? Nobody is forcing him to participate. New people appear, others go, views change and sometimes past consensus was made because one side had bad editor who didn't know Wiki rules and didn't have good arguments so the other's side won. It's not a problem if the discussion is civil. I'm present on this page for years as IP. I always have discussed arugments and sources and they Joy and others have always attacking and banning people. This is no way to go. Wikipedia is made for everyone and discussions should be free. And, again, I repeat, it's not consatant. I think only 5 considerable in the last decade. That's not constant. 78.2.209.226 (talk) 18:51, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Because Serbian/Croatian nationalist disputes are covered by the Wikipedia:Contentious topics list, and importing real-world geopolitical disputes to Wikipedia should not "be free". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:58, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to tell you that was not the case for Tesla article at all. I'm Croatian and I have agreed with Sadko who is Serbian to remove Croatia. Joy is Croatian and he has disagreed with Trimpops to add Croatia. Most of Croatians have disagreed with Trimpops, you can see for yourself. I don't remember any Tesla discussion where we had Croats against Serbs. It was always a mix on one side and mix on other side of discussions, and even then they were a minority of editors in a particular discussion, most were not Croats or Serbs. 78.2.209.226 (talk) 19:03, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fighting over how often to mention/not mention a country's name is importing the dispute. It doesn't matter what ethnic or national allegiance the disputants claim. (You already know that some people lie on the internet, right?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:06, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not like that. Discussions were always about specific topic or sources. But anyways, he started to ban again. Time for me to take a rest for a while from this article. 212.15.177.40 (talk) 19:28, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

protection?

I see the latest bout of block evasion is affecting your user talk, but you're also engaging with them. Do you wish to continue doing that, or do you want your user talk to be temporarily protected? --Joy (talk) 19:21, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offer, but I don't think it will be necessary yet. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:26, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic AI

Read your post about experienced editors detecting LLMs the AI RfC, realized it got a bit too tangential, decided I would come and bother you here instead.

Even when AI is used... does it always matter?

Take, for instance, this guy, Byron Mann, aka Byronmann. He spent the better part of 15 years coming onto Wikipedia, trying to remove his birthday because he says it's incorrect[2]. (I did a bit of snooping, dusted the cobwebs off a few very old message boards, and am inclined to agree). But he didn't use the Magic Three Letter Acronyms, or know how to use them - so he got reverted. A lot. [3][4][5]. And, 2025 rolls around and he suddenly shows up to WP:BLP/N, throwing in all the right, scary words - BLP, "page protection", and "Diff" [6] - and a bunch of us editors go "Wait, why can't we find a source pre-dating the original addition to the article?" and he finally gets what he wants - incorrect information removed and a couple people watching the page to make sure it stays out pending a good source.

Now, I don't know for certain how he went from knowing nothing to citing PAGs at BLP/N, just like I don't know who instructed him to "Diff:[add the diff link from history where age was re-added]." I do know that the Google-indexable internet doesn't have results for that placeholder text, and I do know that this would probably count as "communication from the user" under G15. But either way, it clearly worked, when nothing else did. If somebody had removed his post for being AI generated, would we have been better off? GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 03:45, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I really think that we need to accept some AI posts on talk pages. The lengthy ones can be irritating, and I don't want The Regulars™ to do that, but if an LLM helps package a message in a way that we can understand it, especially when we haven't been listening enough to follow our own policies, then the underlying facts are more important than the process by which the facts are described. (See also Wikipedia:Product, process, policy.)

You wouldn't think that Wikipedia editors would have such a hard time with that concept, but it seems to strike some people in a very bad way – like you're lying to them, if you don't write every word yourself. It's not good enough to use an LLM to draft something, make sure that it says what you mean, and then post it. In fact, it's not even good enough to write the words 100% yourself, if someone's gotten it into his head (rightly or wrongly) that you are a LLM user. It's impossible to disprove.

I was pinged to a discussion at AN that seems to be closing as "You didn't say Mother, May I? before posting that LLM-based explanation, so we win on a technicality". I'd rather that the dispute was solved by someone saying "Look, you don't have to like it, and you're free to think everyone else is wrong and stupid, but you lost fair and square, and you need to put down the WP:STICK and let that article go to wrack and ruin, instead of trying a ~~third~~ fourth way to get the outcome you've passionately argued for for so long". WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:17, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if it's a respect thing. Like, from the average Wikipedian's perspective, people using chatbots aren't even deigning to speak with them, so why should they both to listen? Or AGF? Or do anything other than try to prove that the person who won't even given them the time of day is anything but a Bad Person? Even in that conversation, you see people addressing their comments the chatbot rather than the human. And I'm sure a certain percentage of people are just using them as a microphone to more noticeably stick their fingers in their ears and shout about how they were right. But I'd guess that most people using them are just insecure in their own writing ability or genuinely don't know how to write in their own words. Lots of people struggle with that. And while they might not always understand what you write back, the actual human operating the account is reading what you say. At least, I hope. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 18:41, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The most frustrating example of this for me was about Böksta Runestone earlier this year. It's a historical artifact in Sweden. The newcomer didn't speak English natively, but he could understand it well enough to realize that we had a factual error in an image caption. The conversation went something like this:

Newcomer with LLM assistance: There's an error here, and here's why it's wrong.
Two Wikipedia editors: You horrible chatbot-using scum!
Newcomer without LLM assistance: I didn't know LLMs were banned. Okay, so apologies if my English is off, but there's an error here, and it should be fixed.
Two Wikipedia editors: Stop using a chatbot! You are obviously using a chatbot!
Newcomer without LLM assistance: About that factual error in the article: If you compare it to what's in the Swedish Wikipedia article, then we see that this is not correct.
Two Wikipedia editors: Stop using a chatbot! We don't have to listen to anything you say because you used a chatbot!
Newcomer without LLM assistance: I have already stopped using a chatbot. I only used ChatGPT for the first comment, and as soon as you told me that it's not okay, I stopped and have written everything by myself as best as I can. Can we please fix the error in the article now?
Two Wikipedia editors: La la la we don't have to listen to you brainless chatbot users, and anyone who can't see that you're just a chatbot user is stupid!

One of them finally fixed the error in the article, but still kept yelling at him for using a chatbot even after he stopped. This is bad behavior, even if you hold the worst possible view of chatbot use. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:56, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Hadu tribe

Hello, WhatamIdoing. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Hadu tribe, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 12:06, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

US politics

Is anyone insane enough to do US politics 'round here? Do you make that mistake? Iran Experts Initiative is pretty bad. I did some cleanup work but the article needs someone who actually knows how to deal with such things. Not sure if I should describe it as a wasps nest or a cesspool. A wasp-infested cesspool? Polygnotus (talk) 18:48, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about the subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:15, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know who I could ask? Its more right-wing US than Iran/Saudi. Polygnotus (talk) 20:17, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism? Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics? Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics/American politics? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:19, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Was kinda hoping you'd know someone. I tried on NPOVN but no dice. The pages of WikiProjects usually don't help answer the only important thing about a Wikiproject : "who is the person I should ask about this topic". According to my calculations roughly half of the accounts listed as members of Wikiprojects are inactive or blocked, and there are over 200 wikiprojects in Category:Active WikiProjects that haven't been edited in over a year: User:Polygnotus/inactivewikiprojects. The only way to deal with it is FilterInactiveOrBlocked., then SortByEditcount. Polygnotus (talk) 22:28, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject X had a bot to automatically add/remove members from lists, based on activity. Most groups (and all defunct/inactive/former groups) didn't adopt it. I'd be happy if someone ran through old lists and removed the names of people who haven't edited for a couple of years. It would make it easier to find and tag the defunct groups.

I sometimes wish for a "sort by edit count" that lists only people who have edited during the last year or so. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:50, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll try to find it. I was thinking about making a bot that creates a weighted sort which takes into account how much they edit and how recent their last edit was. Sadly the clueful people are busy, many people don't actually list themselves as a participant in a WikiProject despite having the skills required and Quarry 96802 always has a bunch of (evil) gnomes near the top. I wish I could outsource all my problems. Well, I can, but if I did I would expect terrible results. Polygnotus (talk) 02:56, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback on essay/formulation of policy proposal

Hi, we've interacted a few times in the past regarding policy proposals and discussions, and I've passively appreciated your takes on various other policy issues. I've privately started putting together an essay/proposal that I wanted early feedback on from a vet.

1. Is it appropriate to directly ask for reviewer comments like this? I'm working through drafts, so I wasn't sure what's the best way to include others in the iteration process.

2. What's the best way to share the current draft? Is it through a subpage that I create, or some other place?

Much thanks, spintheer (talk) 05:46, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How private do you want that private draft to be? If it's on a subpage, then anyone on the internet will be able to see it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:50, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok, I'll email it. spintheer (talk) 06:05, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Enough material to write an article

Hello WAID,

On the topic of notability boundaries, and guideline writing for the boundaries, and interviews, I would be interested in your take on Greg Hayes (audio_engineer), currently at DRV, WP:Deletion review/Log/2025 November 4. The article included a source ([7]), an interview with a preamble.

Do you agree with me, me thinking that the preamble can be taken as independent secondary source coverage?

Is there enough material to write an article?

- SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:53, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, phrases like "one standout in this field", though we wouldn't usually want to use them in an encyclopedia article because of the puffy tone, are comparisons and therefore an example of secondary content.

Whether it's independent is a much less clear to me. This is a business interviewing one of their customers, and they probably wouldn't have published it if the subject wasn't promoting their products in the interview. If I saw this in a trade magazine, I'd probably judge the magazine and the subject to be independent of each other. But I'm inclined to say the opposite here: he's probably not getting paid for this interview, but the business' decision to publish the interview is probably entirely self-interested. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:32, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

I was going to go easy on “independent” considerations after our previous conversations.

You don’t seem to like this method, but I find the source to have clues of flags of non-independence, mainly the close perspective of the author to the subject, it feeling like they are sitting together. “One standout in this field” is also puff, unverifiable, unquantifiable, positive opinion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:12, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's nothing wrong with having an unquantifiable positive opinion. But I think it'd be tricky to use this source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:05, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

A quick thank-you for your reply to that young TA. I struggle with finding the right words for talking to young newbies without scaring them off, so it was helpful to see how you responded. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 23:08, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it works. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:06, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe

I was thinking how to approach the WPMED invitations/editathon/whatever problem in a way that spares the server kitties. meta:Connection Team/Invitation list isn't suitable for large nummbers. Something like User:Polygnotus/PAWS/cat2users? Am I missing important stuff? Polygnotus (talk) 21:42, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you want to do that? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:47, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[8] and various other places. Polygnotus (talk) 21:48, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How many editors are you hoping to invite (hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands...)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:57, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The goal is to create a method of making lists of usernames based on cats that is somewhat userfriendly and can be used by people who host editathons (or do the WPMED invites like you). So the input should be one or more cats, the output should be a list of usernames of users who've edited articles in those cats.

The WMF created that Invitation list thing I linked to, I looked at the code and thought about how to make something better. This is the v0.01. Polygnotus (talk) 22:00, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the WMF put some time and effort into determining how big a MassMessage-type list can get, without someone pitching a fit. (The record is six [yes, the single-digit number], BTW, but he got smacked pretty hard by his community for that, and I don't think it will happen again at that level.) A long invitation list could get the tool prohibited for everyone. Maybe it would be better to issue a handful of invitations at a time?

And if you want general broadcast methods, try things like the watchlist notices. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:27, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you

		The Original Barnstar
		For your countless detailed explanations of Wikipedia's labyrinth of policies. When I see a policy discussion, I know you will soon provide a well-reasoned and factually supported opinion, even if not everyone agrees with it. Katzrockso (talk) 00:03, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:12, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]