User talk:WhatamIdoing

{{User QAIbox

| image = Ehrenbach icicles.jpg

| image_upright = 1.31

| bold = story · music · places

}}

Happy new year 2025, opened with trumpet fanfares that first sounded OTD in 1725 (as the Main page has). -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

:Good morning what can I help you with? Yes, the trumpets have sounded. 98.186.205.17 (talk) 04:32, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Liebster Immanuel, Herzog der Frommen, BWV 123, my story today 300 years after the first performance, is up for GAN. Dada Masilo will be my story tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

My story today is about a composer who influenced music history also by writing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

... and today, pictured on the Main page, Tosca, in memory of her first appearance on stage OTD in 1900, and of principal author Brian Boulton. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Today, between many who just died, Tobias Kratzer on his 45th birthday who was good for an unusual DYK mentioning a Verdi opera in 2018, - you can see his work in the trailer of another one that I saw, and my talk page has a third (but by a different director). 2025 pics, finally. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi there, I thought I'd write to you here regarding any requests for medical topics. Our students are pharmacy and biomedical science students so any topics that fall within these fields would be great. Of course the wider medical field is also OK. I apologise for not always being able to respond in a timely fashion but will do my best to keep checking back here. G.J.ThomThom (talk) 09:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

:@G.J.ThomThom, when does the class start (or at least start talking about Wikipedia)? Approximately how many students (or articles)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

::We've started! Pharmacy students are in the process of choosing topics. I ahve offered the 2 topics you have shared with me. Biomed students will start this process a little later. G.J.ThomThom (talk) 03:09, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

:::I hope the class goes well. If you want to, you could post a list of the chosen topics for review at WT:MED. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:01, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

::::Hi there

::::Can I trouble you with a couple of questions? Students are at the stage of completing their articles. We are aware that primary sources are not desired and instruct students to search for secondary sources to support the information in the article. This is not always easy though. I am going through some of their articles and some of them have used primary sources. They have also used some commercial websites such as Mayo clinic etc. I'd be grateful for your thoughts about this. G.J.ThomThom (talk) 04:32, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Sites like mayoclinic.com are usually acceptable only for uncontroversial information. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Other sources.

:::::Can you give me links to a few articles that are the most in need of improved sources? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:20, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi, WaId. Just thought I'd leave you a friendly tip bout Legobot. I learned to my surprise some time back, that Legobot doesn't respect surrounding <-- comment delimiters --> or nowiki tags, so if you leave {​{rfc}​} commented out or nowiki-protected in a Talk page comment somewhere, like here at Talk:Amphetamine, Legobot is still going to see it anyway, and add a new Rfc header, as it did here a few minutes later, right in the middle of your Talk page comment. (And then the FRS-bot notified me randomly of "your Rfc" !) You can still refer to an Rfc header in a Talk comment, but you have to obfuscate it somehow, either don't use the double curlies, or use a Cyrillic es character (с = Unicode 0441: 'с') which looks exactly like an Ascii lower-case C, or introduce invisible spacing via the zero-width space character (as I did above), or by using <noinclude/> e.g., : R<noinclude/>fc or {{tl|Not a typo}} with two args, or an embedded comment {<!--la la la-->{Rfc}}; pick your poison. (If I screwed up any of the examples, Legobot will soon start an Rfc inside my comment; I'll fix it, if it does.) I find the с-trick much the easiest, but there's a possibility of confusing a fraction of users—neither the newbies nor the experts, but some tech-aware people in the middle— usually not a problem, though.

I fixed up your comment at Talk:Amphetamine to look the way you intended (took me two tries!), apologies for the TPO, but I'm pretty sure I have it right, now. Hopefully, the tip will save you some Legobot-induced grief next time around; it really should be considered a bug, and it should be fixed. I have a feeling the reason it isn't, is that Legobot is used to acting on commented out strings, and so are archiving bots, when seeing {{tl|DNAU}} embedded in comment delimiters, but <nowiki> really should have disabled it. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks for the note, and more importantly, for fixing it. I'm pretty sure that I have been told this detail before, but I'd forgotten it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for inspiring WP:DONTSAY3RDPARTY. What do you think should be done about :Template:Third-party inline? jps (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

:@ජපස, I think it could be trivially re-worded ("independent source needed") and moved to Template:Independent source inline (keeping the redirect). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

::{{done}} jps (talk) 16:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Thanks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I missed this one. :Template:Third-party. It looks like it may be a bigger to-do. What do you think? jps (talk) 22:43, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

:Template:Independent sources redirects there, so why not just move the page over the redirect? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:55, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

::Seems reasonable to me, but, alas, it is template protected, so this will have to be an admin task. Do you want me to ask at WP:AN or something? jps (talk) 16:54, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

:::@Primefac, it looks like you move-protected this template. Would you mind moving it to "Independent sources"? The old "third-party" language seems to be confusing editors again ("Who are the first and second parties?"), so we're trying to reduce its visibility. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:23, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

::::Not at all. Primefac (talk) 18:06, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{thank you}} WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:11, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::Thanks, Primefac, for the move, but there is still a lot of verbiage left in the template itself that uses "third-party" instead of "independent". Would it be possible to get a modification to something more like what follows?

:::::{{safesubst:#invoke:Unsubst||date=__DATE__ |$B=

{{Ambox

| name = Independent sources

| type = content

| image = 50x40px

| issue = This {{{1|article}}} may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, potentially preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral.

| fix = Please help [{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}} improve it] by replacing them with more appropriate citations to reliable, independent sources. {{#if:{{{2|}}}|The source in dispute is: {{{2}}}.}}

| date = {{{date|}}}

|removalnotice = yes

}}{{DMCA|Articles lacking reliable references|from|{{{date|}}}|All articles lacking reliable references}}

}}

{{documentation}}

:::::jps (talk) 16:09, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::Maybe post that on the talk page with Template:Edit protected? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:55, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Ideally, yes, but since I'm here I might as well. Primefac (talk) 20:11, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Thanks. I should have realized that edit request was the better method. jps (talk) 13:44, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Your stock just went up. Anybody who knows Alice's Restaurant is okay in my book. Supporting me in that discussion doesn't hurt, either. Cheers, ―Mandruss ☎ 08:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you. I suspect you have to be of a certain age to remember Alice's Restaurant.

:BTW, I just started documenting the 'other' Alice at User:WhatamIdoing/Cast of characters. The backstories are getting too long for me to carry around in my head. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:15, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

::I am definitely of a certain age. I somehow happened upon Alice's Restaurant when I was in high school. It became a family favorite at Thanksgiving. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

{{You've got mail}}

@WhatamIdoing Thank you so much for your time, and have a great week =) Phoebezz22 (talk) 17:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

:@Phoebezz22, I have no experience with LLMs, and I am not interested in being interviewed. Good luck, WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you for letting me know! Phoebezz22 (talk) 18:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Let's say 2 people are debating on some random talkpage. One of them links to a selfpublished video about a BLP subject (who is not the publisher of the video) on YouTube, because they want to use it as an example of what they are talking about (and not as a source in the article). So for example: I link to your selfpublished video about George Bush. The video does not infringe on anyone's copyright. Should that be and is that allowed or not? Polygnotus (talk) 07:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

:That is allowed. For one thing, if we banned all such links, it would be difficult for editors to talk about whether they were self-published.

:I think it should be allowed, with the caveat that if it's derogatory or contentious, it should be removed or 'broken' when the discussion is over. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:23, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

::Yeah, "derogatory" may be a good word to describe your selfpublished video about George Bush. {{smiley}} Thanks! Polygnotus (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

::I'm guessing that Polygnotus asked this in response to an exchange in a very contentious AfD discussion with a bunch of denigrating comments about the article subject. (There's actually a discussion at BLPN about whether the page should be courtesy blanked in light of them.) The hypothetical brushes over some particulars that are relevant: Sgerbic introduced the Youtube video and made some comments about the people shown in the video (Ido Kedar and his mother), using the video as a source. I pointed out that the BLP policy applies on all pages, I quoted the relevant sentence from BLPSPS, I noted that this specific Youtube video was self-published by someone other than Kedar and his mother, and I asked her to remove the link, which she did (though her comments using the video as a source remain, and she added information about how to find the video without the link). Then Polygnotus reintroduced the link, telling me that it was not a BLP violation. It's one thing for someone to introduce a BLPSPS-violating source, perhaps not realizing that it violated BLPSPS. It's something else for another editor to reintroduce a link after it was removed, having seen the exchange about it violating BLPSPS. I've asked Polygnotus to remove the link they reintroduced. And although I don't think it's key here, the video itself is contentious. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

:::{{tq|I quoted the relevant sentence from BLPSPS}} a sentence you yourself edited 2 days ago, and which does not support your claim that its a BLPVIO.

:::You are leaving out important context, it wasn't about "What is a BLPVIO?", what happened is that longterm goodfaith Wikipedians were falsely accused behind their backs of insulting incredibly vulnerable people because they do not believe in pseudoscientific methods like Facilitated communication and Rapid prompting method. Apparently some people who are very interested in autism-related articles don't like it when sceptics say that they do not believe that FC and RPM work. My advice was to not draw attention to those comments, great advice for those who actually care about protecting the BLP subject, but instead you decided to make a big scene and act as if those sceptics were horrible people who were violating BLP and insulting the BLP subject. People don't need to have sources for their opinions on talkpages and there is quite a bit of leeway on what you can say because that is required when building an encyclopedia, and you can't just falsely accuse people you disagree with of breaking the rules.

:::You don't seem to understand how serious it is to accuse someone of insulting and degrading a very very vulnerable person. Without proof. See WP:ASPERSIONS.

:::The view of the sceptics is explained in places like [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KTu8AAI6-8] and [https://www.facilitatedcommunication.org/blog/clever-hands-skepticism-and-ido-in-autismland] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ido_Kedar#c-Isaidnoway-20250117025000-PARAKANYAA-20250116195200].

:::One time I wrote {{tq|It is very hard to figure out when to trust a liar.}} on a talkpage and 1 person went full tilt, but every other person said that was acceptable (for the record, he did make many false claims so it wasn't an unfair description).

:::Not sure why you are bothering WhatamIdoing with this stuff, but now that we are here: WhatamIdoing can you please explain to FOO that the fact that sceptical people do not believe in FC and RPM is not a BLPVIO and falls within the parameters of acceptable debate on a talkpage? I tried to explain it but they don't listen and I was unhappy with the way FOO treated me so I tried to ignore them for a bit. Thanks, Polygnotus (talk) 01:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

::::WhatamIdoing, I'm sorry that you've become embroiled in this and for my part in that. I disagree with much of what Polygnotus just wrote, but won't respond further here unless you want me to clarify something. Polygnotus, if you have a problem with my behavior, I suggest that you take your concerns to my Talk page. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::Well, I was trying to ignore you because of your behaviour. Can I please go back to ignoring you now? I don't want to explain BLP violations to you and you won't listen to me anyway. If WhatamIdoing wants to then WhatamIdoing can explain that people are allowed to voice their opinions on talkpages, even if those opinions are unpleasant to hear for some. Polygnotus (talk) 01:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

:::First reaction: Oh, joy. Everyone's riled up about Facilitated communication just in time for DRN to propose an RFC on a new, less pathologizing lead for Autism.

:::Second thought: Having glanced through that mess, I think it probably should be courtesy blanked. Whether that's primarily a courtesy to the BLP subject or to our editors, who are not acquitting themselves with grace, is an open question in my mind.

:::On the question of FC, I find myself wondering what would happen if his mother were wearing dark sunglasses, so she could be next to him but not see the screen. Or if she just closed her eyes while he typed. (I would be surprised if she agreed to any such test. At this point, proving to herself that she's unconsciously cuing would be an extremely painful, life-shattering discovery for her.)

:::I wonder what an ethicist would make of message-passing tests in FC. Perhaps it's not in the nonspeaking person's best interest to have fraudulent (if unconscious) communication proven. If the parent/facilitator's loses the emotional bond or the feeling that something special is happening, that might ultimately reduce the nonspeaking person's quality of life. If we extend Alexis de Tocqueville's line about having "too good a memory" ruining aspiring politicians, perhaps there is such a thing as too much knowledge about what sustains a person through difficult circumstances. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

::::Counterpoint to {{tq|Perhaps it's not in the nonspeaking person's best interest to have fraudulent (if unconscious) communication proven.}} Tell Them You Love Me. Polygnotus (talk) 11:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yes, I remember when that horrifying case broke. It, and the resulting activity on Wikipedia, is one of the main reasons that I've ever looked into FC. (But she was a babysitter, not a parent; she could have walked away if she didn't like it, whereas parents usually can't.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::You are referring to something else I think, this is about Facilitated_communication#Anna_Stubblefield. List of abuse allegations made through facilitated communication There are quite a few of those stories. Polygnotus (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::No, it's that case. "Babysitter" is perhaps the wrong word, but she was taking care of him for hours at a time. (I wonder whether the last sentence for the lead ought to mention not only false allegations of abuse but also facilitators falling in love with their clients.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Ah, gotcha. Yeah I am not sure if I would describe that as "falling in love" when there is a power imbalance like that. To me, that is not what love is. Polygnotus (talk) 03:53, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Language is tricky. One can fall in love with reflections of oneself, which appears to be what's happening here, but "falling in love" does sound a little too accepting of the POV. Perhaps "have claimed to"? I'm sure wording could be worked out either through direct editing or a discussion on the talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:37, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I would describe it as sexual assault (she was found guilty of two counts of first-degree aggravated sexual assault) or criminal sexual contact (she pled guilty to third-degree aggravated criminal sexual contact). "Language is tricky" is the understatement of the year, and should be Wikipedia's unofficial motto. Polygnotus (talk) 05:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::I was thinking of the reports that other facilitators have announced that "We're in love" (presumably most of them doing so without first raping the client).

:::::::::::Sexuality and disability does not seem to mention consent at all, or the complexity of consent related to dementia or people with communication impairments. Neither does Sexuality in older age. Sexual abuse#Elderly and people with dementia reports that some institutionalized people engage in sexual activities with/on each other, but does not attempt to grapple with the question of whether it's possible for it to be consensual (e.g., [https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/crime-and-courts/2014/12/13/former-legislator-charged-raping-wife-dementia/20305991/ this case]). That's another hole in Wikipedia's coverage. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:10, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Maybe I am stupid but I kinda assume that this is the kinda thing the WMF is (or should be) willing to throw some money towards. Both disability related topics and sexuality related topics can use a lot of work, and it would be nice to have some people on the WMF's dime who know what they are talking about and are willing to tackle sensitive topics. Volunteers got the milhist and sports stuff covered; spending some money to fill in the gaps makes sense to me. It is one of the easier ways to raise the overall quality. We do have Sexual abuse and intellectual disability which may overlap a bit with Sexuality and disability. Patient_abuse#Intellectual_disabilities consists of a single sentence. Polygnotus (talk) 06:22, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::The WMF does not pay for content creation. They have funded access to sources (and occasionally even a camera, when the missing content is photos), and they will pay for events at which people (learn how to) edit, but they do not pay for writing articles.

:::::::::::::Sometimes a non-profit that is not affiliated with the WMF will hire someone to create or improve articles. For example, the International League Against Epilepsy tried it a while ago, in the hope of improving articles about epilepsy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:09, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

::::Yup, if I had it to do over again, I certainly would have made some different decisions about how I participated in that discussion. FWIW, there's been a discussion at the BLPN about courtesy blanking the AfD discussion (and I would make some different decisions in the discussion there too). Unfortunately, I discovered tonight that someone has archived the AfD discussion at the Internet Archive — not something I ever would have thought to check on, except that a comment from ජපස (jps) at the bottom of the AfD discussion linked to [https://neuroclastic.com/fc-rpm-and-how-wikipedia-became-complicit-in-silencing-non-speaking-autistics/ this article], which noted archived AfD discussions, so I decided to check. The whole thing is a mess. If you think I was wrong to ask Sgerbic to delete the YouTube link and/or to ask Polygnotus to delete it after he reintroduced it, please say. I was acting on my understanding of BLPSPS, but I certainly recognize that just because I believe something doesn't make it true. FactOrOpinion (talk) 06:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::You were wrong to act so childish when I was trying to help you, you and your side were wrong to draw so much attention to an AfD that would normally maybe get 10 votes and be forgotten in a week (which showed that this was all about ego, not protecting Kedar), you were wrong to demand (not ask) to remove that video, you were wrong to repeat yourself a million times. And your understanding of BLPSPS is clearly flawed, nothing in there gives you the right to do what you did. Oh, and the worst thing you did is accuse goodfaith longterm Wikipedians of insulting and degrading someone so vulnerable, when all they did was stick up for a disabled man in a tough situation.

:::::This is a problem with certain advocacy groups on Wikipedia and in the real world; they lose all connection to reality.

:::::People think "my autism just makes me like trains, therefore all people with that label must be secret geniuses who get discriminated against." But the label "autism" has been applied to an enormously diverse group, with incredibly wideranging abilities. Which is why the term has become meaningless and should be replaced with something that also turns out to be bad when the new DSM rolls around.

:::::It won't help, but I have courtesy blanked the AfD, because we should be ashamed of it, as a community. WhatamIdoing can explain to you that your understanding of BLP is incorrect. And please don't ever accuse goodfaith people of such a thing again.

:::::Polygnotus (talk) 10:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::{{ping|Polygnotus}} would you be so kind as to post notifications and explanation for your courtesy blanking to the relevant threads at WP:BLPN and WP: FTN? I saw the courtesy blanking and wasn't sure what the rationale was for it, but after reading this comment, I understand and agree, so it might be useful to have this explained for those who may be confused as to the rationale. jps (talk) 13:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::{{ping|ජපස}} Good point, thank you. I have done so. I hope this explanation is enough, if not people are of course welcome on my talkpage. Polygnotus (talk) 13:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::I wonder, if you look back over your life, how much success you've had when you tell adults that they're being childish. I have not found it to be a useful way to win friends and influence people myself. People can have different opinions about what is insulting or degrading.

::::::Given the lack of clarity over at WT:V and WT:BLP about what constitutes a self-published source, I'm hesitant to say that FOO's understanding of BLP is actually incorrect. It might turn out to be "a minority POV", and it might even turn out to be "incorrect", but right now, we don't have any agreement about whether (e.g.,) a press release issued written by and distributed at the behest of a multinational corporation is "self-published" or "non-self-published". If we take a narrow view of self-publishing (e.g., an individual making and uploading a video to YouTube is 'self-published' but a large organization doing the same is not), then we could see wide-ranging changes to all of our processes. Imagine, e.g., that every press release or social media post condemning the killing of George Floyd from a large organization was non-self-published – and therefore contributed to notability. I think my response to this request is going to have to be "ask me next year". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Did you read what I was referring to? Perhaps it was not a nice thing to say, but based on your reaction it looks like you haven't read the context. It starts all the way here and then moved to BLPN. Polygnotus (talk) 20:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Anyway, I am gonna shrug and move on. I tried helping but it was impossible to explain anything. Debates in public places are very difficult because people keep jumping in based on the last three posts and don't know the background and history and are unfamiliar with the concepts. I hate it when goodfaith people are falsely accused behind their back. People just assume that those who disagree with them must be evil. Polygnotus (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Last three posts, or the first three posts – I agree. I glanced through the AFD but none of the other pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:05, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::About autism:

::::::There appear to be three main theories, which I massively oversimplify and unfairly caricaturise here:

::::::# Autism is a developmental disorder proximately caused by congenital malformation of the brain, partly or mostly due to genetics. It contains a variety of problems (e.g., sensory problems like hyperacusis).

::::::# Autism is a normal part of being human. It has advantages and disadvantages and also co-occurring conditions that are statistically correlated with autism but are really separate things (e.g., conditions that some non-autistic people also get, like hyperacusis).

::::::# Autism is a meaningless mess. Didn't any of you study nosology? Saying that autism is a distinct medical condition is like saying a fever is a disease. What the DSM and ICD call a single spectrum disorder is probably best understood as a collection of symptoms that manifest in dozens or hundreds of actual diseases. No wonder you #1 folks can't find any reliable biomarkers. It's not one thing!

::::::I think there is much to be said in theory for the third viewpoint, but it's not very practical at the clinical level. At the Wikipedia level, it would be interesting to find a source that talks about the proportion of savant-like abilities. I could imagine a ==Society and culture== paragraph contrasting the actual (low) prevalence of striking talents in the real world against their appearance in pop culture (e.g., Rain Man). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

::::WhatamIdoing, I feel like I need some guidance here (about the exchange above and related comments elsewhere), but I also don't want to drag you further into something that you may not wish to be a part of. Can you suggest someone or someplace that it would be appropriate for me to seek guidance from? Thanks, FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

::I'd appreciate your weighing in on Newslinger's response to me here about the applicability of the BLP policy outside of mainspace. I'm not sure whether the two of you view it differently, or if I'm simply failing to understand something about the view that each of you takes on this. Thanks, FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:20, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

:::I think that the basic problem is that the written rules, at this point in time, do not adequately communicate the nuances and complexities of what's actually accepted by the community. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:50, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

::::I'd be interested in hearing more about how you perceive the nuances and complexities, but understand if that's not something you want to take the time for. If you are up for it, it might be more useful to post that to WT:BLP, in case someone wants to work on revising BLPSPS at some point.

::::I'm not in a position to work on BLPSPS now (nor does it make sense to work on it now if there's a possibility that the explanation of SPS will change), but I might be up for it later, perhaps depending on whether my RfC turns out to be a bad RfC / worthless in making progress, or if it instead turns out to be useful in some way. I need to proofread it, hopefully for the last time, and then post it. I know that lots of people create RfCs, and it's not that I've been less thoughtful than them, but I'm still feeling a bit anxious about actually posting it (because it's so much longer than most RfCs and I wonder if people will be willing to wade through a lot of text or if that will just tick people off, and because it's hard to communicate the issues effectively even though I've tried, as my approach is partly based on nuances and complexities in the previous discussions). But I know that I've made an effort to do a good job and my intentions are good, so I should just be bold and do it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:10, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::One last question, and of course feel free to ignore it. I ended up trying two different organizations for the RfC. This one is organized Q1, Q2, Respond to both, and this one is organized Q1, Response1, Q2, Response2. Do you have any thoughts about which organization would be better? I go back and forth. I think it would be easier for a closer if I choose the second layout. I'm trying to figure out whether there's a benefit to people reading both questions before responding or if discussion might be easier if the questions are separated. FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:05, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::Just realized that I can just split the survey portion in two even if I present the questions together. I think that's what I'll go with: Q1, Q2, Responses section = Space for questions / Discussion / Q1 survey / Q2 survey. FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:42, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

FactOrOpinion and myself apologized to eachother so that is good news.

But then, while hunting for trash on BLPN, I found a false claim that someone was allegedly fired for their alleged treatment of female employees. Case of mistaken identity.

IPs tried to remove it, editwar ensued. I factchecked and then removed the BLP violation. Would you be so kind to take a look at Talk:Bessel_van_der_Kolk, specifically the Outdated and scientifically discredited theories section. I am not sure how to deal with that. It is not FC/RPM, but it is repressed memories and the triune brain model. And of course sexual abuse allegations. And sorry that I keep using you as a sanity check, you made the mistake of giving me good advice, if you are busy just send me to someone else. Polygnotus (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

:I have left a few comments on the talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:41, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

voorts removed the RfC tag pretty quickly, saying that the RfC had too much text and wasn't actionable, and suggesting that I have another BEFORE discussion and then return with "concrete proposals." You'd warned me about this possibility, saying "I've seen some editors this year opposing RFCs that ask for general principles (as yours does), instead of providing exact proposed wording." He also said that it was up to me if I wanted to replace the tag. So, I see a few possibilities:

• reopen it as is
• reopen it but cut it back to Question 1
• leave the tag off, remove the notices that I'd posted, assume that the answer to Question 1 is "revise," and work on some specific wording, perhaps writing a few different proposals that correspond to the options I'd presented in 2a-c (similar to a possibility you'd mentioned earlier: "If you want to skip the "Houston, do we actually have a problem?" step, then I think that one sensible approach would be to have an RFC that proposes replacing the existing text "X" with improved text "Y", and seeing whether people accept the proposal").

Do you have thoughts about what step to take next? FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:49, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

:I'll reply there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:56, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

::(Short answer: Wait until tomorrow, and then re-open.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:16, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Thanks. I appreciate your help throughout this. I think I'll add a note at the top making it clear that the collapsed sections have additional info but it's not necessary to read any of them. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:22, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

::::I don't think that's necessary. People know what collapsed content signals. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:28, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

In a response to your [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACandy_making&oldid=prev&diff=1272688597 diff], it was closed in compliance with WP:CLOSE: {{tq|After a while, it is time to close the discussion so that the community can move on.}} and {{tq|...any uninvolved editor may close most of them – not just admins.}}. As such I reject and object to your classification/reason for your revert, as it is clearly simply time to move on. It has been 16 days since this section was opened and with dozens of back and forth statements, with zero progress being made towards actually consensus making. Now if you really want to retain the revert, and continue to try to talk with Shanardd you're welcome to do so. I will not stop you, but I believe that there is no signs that consensus is being made here. TiggerJay (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

:@Tiggerjay, you have posted half a dozen comments in that discussion. That means you are not "any uninvolved editor". You are "a definitely involved editor who definitely should not box up the discussion, announce that your side definitely won, and that nobody else is allowed to talk about it any longer". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:38, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

::Lets look specifically at the topic of each post, shall we?

:::1) Documenting what I observed was a POVPUSH [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Candy_making#c-Tiggerjay-20250127161200-British_term] - pretty sure that isn't a side or position, and calling out no meaningful work towards consensus.

:::2) Open to their general concept, but asking for reliable source [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Candy_making#c-Tiggerjay-20250128062700-Sharnadd-20250127222900] - this isn't a position but policy.

:::3-5) And then asking 3 times for them to explicitly state what they wanted to add. Again no position here.

::When someone who has not previously participated in this article, comes in to ask a very specific policy related question, that is not involved. When the answer is non-intelligable[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Candy_making#c-Sharnadd-20250129135200-Tiggerjay-20250128074700], there is no clear sign of getting anywhere after 17-days, that is a clear situation where a close needs to happen. TiggerJay (talk) 03:36, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Sure, let's look at what you posted: You said that someone with a different viewpoint/English language variant was engaged in POV pushing and sealioning, then you engaged in the content question, and then you repeatedly asked them to WP:Bring me a rock. That's called being involved, at least according to my standards.

:::But we don't have to live with my opinion alone. If you'd like, we could ask at a neutral venue, like Wikipedia talk:Closing discussions or Wikipedia talk:Administrators if they think that would be considered WP:INVOLVED. We could just clean up your wording a bit, and maybe remove the links, and say something like:

:::"Hypothetically, if there's a dispute in which an editor posts half a dozen comments, such as:

:::* saying that they believed that one editor was engaging in POV pushing,

:::* asking that editor to provide reliable sources in accordance with our content and sourcing standards, and

:::* repeatedly asking that editor to provide a specific proposal for (e.g., the "Change X to Y" style we use for edit requests),

:::would that editor be considered WP:INVOLVED in the discussion, or is it still okay for them to WP:CLOSE that discussion, in line with the rule that "any uninvolved editor may close" most discussions?"

:::Would you like me to post that question on one of those pages? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:14, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

::::I came here AGF and stated my reason for my actions, I further clearly stated that you are welcome to revert, and you're welcome to continue the conversation. You asserted claims of bad faith, and I further explained why I disagree yet you want to push the issue, towards what end? It only looks like starting from a place of bad faith. Now if you feel the need for recognition that "I was involved", I can offer to you, that perhaps I shouldn't have closed it, and again, I have no problem with you reverting it. If you feel that you really need to force the issue further, I invite you to receive the validation you are looking for by bring it up an a notice board if it will really make you sleep quite better at night. TiggerJay (talk) 05:26, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::I haven't asserted any claims of bad faith. Since "Assuming good faith (AGF) means assuming that people are not deliberately trying to hurt Wikipedia, even when their actions are harmful", then bad faith, in wikijargon, would require me to think that you were deliberately trying to hurt Wikipedia. I have no reason to think that; I believe that you were genuinely trying to help Wikipedia by cutting off a discussion that you found frustrating and irritating.

:::::I have already reverted you, and I have already continued the conversation there. I don't need any sort of "validation"; I already know what the result of such a post would be (which is why I suggested not putting your name or any links in it). My goal in this discussion here was to get you to understand that you were "involved", in the sense that we use that word in our wikijargon, and that you should therefore not have closed it. You now agree with me on that point. I hope you will keep it in mind in the future, as frustrating conversations are just something that's to be expected from time to time.

:::::BTW, I don't know what your experience has been, but from what I see, the most common response to such discussions seems to be to just stop posting, and the second most common appears to be to say something like "I don't think there is any further benefit to continuing this conversation" and then stop posting. Both of those options are available for 'involved' editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:36, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

RE WT:RFC, no, you are not verbose, where verbose means the use of excessive words. You’re a tangentialist, meaning you often expand the scope of a discussion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:41, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

:Perhaps I'm both? I do think you're correct about me expanding the scope of discussions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:51, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

::On a scale of terse - concise - verbose - grandiloquent - unfocused, I think you are in a good place.

::On your tendency to expand scope, I feel that you usefully demonstrate the over-simplicity of a post, including mine. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:12, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi, after checking the list of recent admins yesterday, I left a message for Liz about Rightwords99, who'd edited William M. Connolley's user page, replacing an existing image [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:William_M._Connolley&oldid=1274168646 with another] that I considered vandalism, likely in response to Connolley having made a couple of edits on C. Nicole Mason that Rightwords99 objected to. I was inclined to leave a warning, but wanted a second opinion, as I've never used a warning template before and wasn't sure that that was appropriate or what level to use. I haven't heard back from Liz, and if it's appropriate to leave a warning, I feel like it's better to do that sooner rather than later. In the meantime, I saw that another editor left a message for Rightwords99 about a possible COI related to C. Nicole Mason; Rightwords99 seems to be a SPA and they're continuing to edit the article in promotional ways. So now I'm also wondering if I should say something else to Rightwords99. Would you mind giving me your opinion? Thanks, FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:32, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

:So the answer depends on whether you value creating a paper trail for the admin who will eventually block this editor, or if you just want to express disapproval (which sounds bad, but is a valuable behavior in terms of reinforcing group behavioral norms).

:If the first, then a factual description with links will be more useful: you did this, I reverted it, don't do it again. Consider ==February 2025== as the section heading, because that's what Twinkle does, but it doesn't have to be a template.

:If the latter, then I'd reply to the last message on the page with a message that sounds more like "By the way, I don't know if you knew this, but editing other people's user pages is not appropriate" (and I'd ping the affected editor).

:Not doing anything is also acceptable. Wikipedia:Revert, block, ignore works even without the "block" step. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:19, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

::Also: Please go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets-gadget-section-browsing and turn on Twinkle. (It's in that section, but you might have to scroll down just a little.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:21, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Thanks, I appreciate the advice. I mostly wanted to let them know that what they'd done was really inappropriate and not to do it again, though now that I've learned a bit more, I may go with the paper trail. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:32, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

::::SMH, as I was composing my message, an admin blocked them, as you'd anticipated. But now I have Twinkle installed, and in the future, I'll just trust my judgment. :-) Thanks again, FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:38, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::Congratulations, I guess?

:::::I find Twinkle particularly useful for deletion-worthy pages, but it also adds maintenance tags and delivers a handful of canned messages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:04, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

In [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources&diff=next&oldid=1274957041 this edit] you edited the beginning of an RFC. The substance of the edit seems to improve the RFC without confusing anyone. But there is a time stamp which makes no sense. Would you please fix it? Jc3s5h (talk) 14:44, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

:The point of that edit was to trigger [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Wikipedia_policies_and_guidelines&diff=prev&oldid=1274962090 this edit]. RFC questions are supposed to be WP:RFCBRIEF and are not allowed to contain tables, (because [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Wikipedia_policies_and_guidelines&oldid=1274482083 they don't display]). As the words are not entirely the OP's own, I hesitate to assign the OP's name to my words. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:44, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Any update on "Please do not create any new proposals until the new process is in place." from two months ago? I'm looking to redevelop Wikipedia:WikiProject City University of New York as a full WikiProject, but the process appears to be in limbo. I suppose another alternative might be to taskforce/subproject of Wikipedia:WikiProject Higher education, not sure if that would have all of the same functionality. Pharos (talk) 14:59, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

:@Pharos, that WikiProject already exists. You can WP:REVIVE it at any time. You don't need to make a proposal (and the proposals page has been dead for years, so posting there has a 0% chance of attracting any new participants). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

::OK, thanks! For what it's worth, although the WikiProject has been around for almost 10 years, until now it was more focused on outreach events, rather than actually having a panoply of templates and categories for individual articles. Might pursue it independently or as a taskforce, not sure yet. Pharos (talk) 17:37, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Good luck! WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:40, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi! I saw you sent me an email a while ago but I didn't respond because my Wikipedia email had my real name in it. But this was finally enough prompting for me to make a Wikipedia-only email and switch to it, so if you resend your question I'll respond promptly. Loki (talk) 17:32, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you for not replying from the other account. I think it's important for you to maintain your real-world privacy.

:And to all my talk-page stalkers: If you haven't done the same, please do create a wiki-only e-mail address. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:18, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for being a bit short there but I'm getting a bit annoyed with people thinking that Wikipedia should change its perspective on the world to suit the latest American election results. I think there is merit to your discussion regarding tools - probably at village pump. ;)

Regarding Big Thumpus - they've got 180 edits. Those come down to three categories: edits to the AP2 CTOP, general discussion regarding source reliability generally specifically related to the AP2 CTOP and user talk page messages mostly related to their successful block appeal. Simonm223 (talk) 17:50, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

:I saw a headline indicating that people (i.e., Americans) are dealing with a lot of uncertainty as a result of Trump's re-election, which means people are trying to assert greater control. That could include everything from trivial disputes (the milk should face this way in the refrigerator, not that way!) to trying to control Wikipedia's content and processes. I expect that we'll see this for months, and maybe for years.

:I think it's difficult for newcomers to understand some of our processes that rely on silent consensus. Boxing up a discussion is a sort of public suggestion that we stop already. Sometimes people disagree and remove the tags. (I did, in a different discussion, less than two weeks ago.) Other times, they silently agree. Until you've seen some tags 'stick' and others get removed a few times, you probably feel like someone's rudely shouting "Just shut up!" at you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:39, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you. I hope that you have put Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine on your watchlist and that you will feel free to join the discussions there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:36, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello WhatamIdoing! Could you please put up the final draft for Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles#Workshop for proposal C? Everything else in the RfC is ready to go; we're only waiting for this. Thanks! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 08:49, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

:I have put up a draft adopting your suggested changes and launched the RfC. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:42, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you for moving forward with this; I don't have time for it today. I hope that the RFC is able to reach a consensus that will prevent future disputes over what it's intended to cover. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:33, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

:::I hope so too! {{p|teeth}} Thanks for your understanding, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:42, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

30px

The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grieving_process&redirect=no Grieving process] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at {{section link|1=Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 16#Grieving process}} until a consensus is reached. Interstellarity (talk) 01:10, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for your answer about replying to an RfC. If you have another minute, would you take a look at the below RfC and my meta comment and below reply. The responses to the RfC seems to me to just be acting like a vote with little attempt to find a consensus. What would you expect to emerge from this one? Do you have any thoughts about how I could help move it in a productive direction?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kash_Patel?markasread=334472424&markasreadwiki=enwiki#c-JacktheBrown-20250217182700-Dw31415-20250217172600 Dw31415 (talk) 02:23, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

:In the many years since we started editing, the community has moved pretty significantly from "discussion" towards "voting". I am pessimistic about being able to make that particular discussion more productive. Editors, especially newer (e.g., in the last half dozen years) take a narrower view of RFC questions than they used to. People who vote "oppose" to a question like "Shall we have the word conspiracy theorist in the first sentence?" might well come back next time to say "Oh, yes, I definitely support using that word in the second sentence". Or second paragraph. Or having a whole paragraph in the lead about the various nonsense he has promoted. But I wouldn't have high hopes for getting them to think about the discussion more broadly or less rigidly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:38, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks for the answer. Alas, consensus seems to be very out of fashion these days. Dw31415 (talk) 03:38, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

:::I'd say that it's compromise and negotiation that's gone out of style. In most cases, a simple vote will demonstrate consensus, because the results tend to be very lopsided. But finding out where the consensus lies for a single narrow question doesn't necessarily result in the improvements to articles. It's sometimes more like WP:MOTHERMAYI. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:55, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

::::Agreed. Framing the RfC about 2 words in one sentence, sets up retrenchment in my opinion. Dw31415 (talk) 04:01, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::Some of this is my fault, as I'm responsible for the boxed examples at the end of Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Statement should be neutral and brief. More to the point, I wrote the previous version, which unintentionally over-emphasized yes/no questions, and I think that encouraged a trend towards simplistic questions that are susceptible to voting-style answers. The creation of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and its RFC style also pushed this forward.

:::::We are seeing fewer RFCs, more pre-set answers, more participants, but less engagement and a greater expectation that dropping a vote and disconnecting is the normal way to engage in an RFC discussion. Some editors seem to think that a drive-by comment is preferable. (Hey, I'm not going to WP:BLUDGEON you; I'm just dropping my view on the page and disconnecting. Do what you will; it doesn't matter to me.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:27, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::Interesting. Well you’ve clearly advanced things a lot, and I, for one, really appreciate it. I think the headwinds against listening and empathy are really strong so the trend here just reflects the larger cultural trend. If I come up with any insights or ideas, I’ll bring it back to the RfC talk page. Dw31415 (talk) 04:44, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I think you're right about the larger cultural trend. Please do take any insights to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment, even if it's years from now. The regulars there are always interested. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:51, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

• [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25382580/] (it's on sci hub if you are paywalled)

Is this source primary? It seems to be expert opinion plus literature review. I don't see any new data presented. Moribundum (talk) 13:58, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

:I think that "First published: 08 November 2014" means WP:MEDDATE failure.

:(I never use SciHub or similar sites. Most Wiley articles are available via Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:48, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

::Yes OK. Sometimes difficult to make MEDDATE for less common medical conditions. There might be 1 systematic review in the last 5 years for example.

::But is it a primary source? I saw it tagged as such, but not sure. Moribundum (talk) 08:21, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Well, here's the usual list:

:::{{MEDRS evaluation

| source = [https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/doi/10.1111/codi.12830 Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy for obstructed defaecation syndrome: time for a critical appraisal]], {{PMID|25382580}}

| date = 21 January 2015

| journal = Colorectal Disease

| publisher = Wiley (publisher)

| reputation = Top quarter according to https://www.scopus.com/sourceid/28281, WP:Impact factor of 2.9 (which is good for this field)

| type = uncertain

| human = Based on humans

| independence = Presumably

}}

:::Much of the article feels like a quick Literature review, but the end feels a bit like an Editorial. It is advocating a particular behavior change in the field's standards. A "pure" review article would say something like "X is better than Y" and let the reader decide whether "better" was a quality they wanted.

:::The thing that gives me the most concern is that the article type is "Special article", and the publication history shows that the manuscript was received and accepted on the same day. This may indicate that the article was not peer reviewed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:15, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

::::Thanks for that analysis. So apparently special articles are often invited authors who address some particular topic, and the article may be the first in a given issue. It's not clear re peer review, but it also says several days later it was accepted online... And apparently special articles are normally subject to the same peer review as the rest of the articles. As for primary / secondary, I think overall we cannot call this primary since no new data is presented. Moribundum (talk) 21:25, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::No new data is presented, but the call to action is probably primary (first publication of the authors' own opinion about what should change in the industry). This may be a case in which it's WP:PRIMARYINPART rather than being easy to classify. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:39, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::Understood. So "How you use the source affects the classification of the source."

::::::What do you think about the use of the source in the section "Ventral mesh rectopexy" on Obstructed defecation? In that section the source is used to talk about the regional popularity of the procedure, development of the technique and gives some details about the procedure. Since all of that is drawn from the "literature review" part of the source, it is not primary source?

::::::On a different article [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_rectal_prolapse#Management] ("choice of procedure"), the source is used as follows:

::::::{{tq|Some have called for caution with regards to the rapid rise in popularity of ventral mesh rectopexy, citing lack of high quality evidence and concerns about long term efficacy and possible mesh related complications.}} Moribundum (talk) 09:06, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::What do I think about the paragraph in Obstructed defecation#Ventral mesh rectopexy?

:::::::* The first sentence (popularity) is not Wikipedia:Biomedical information, so it doesn't matter.

:::::::* I would not describe it as a primary source for the description of sutured posterior rectopexy and its consequences.

:::::::* It is not a primary source for history ("2004").

:::::::* It is not a primary source for a basic description of the procedure ("A mesh is placed...") or the hopes ("prevent recurrence").

:::::::* I would not describe it as a primary source for the results ("pouch of Douglas").

:::::::* But what's most important is: Figure out why the person who tagged that thinks that this source is a problem. It doesn't matter if they're Right™. If you don't find out what their real problem is, you'll be playing Wikipedia:Bring me a rock forever.

:::::::Also, look at the number of times that patient is used in that article, and compare that against Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Common pitfalls. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:55, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Thanks for that analysis. I guess I can conclude that apart from MEDDATE, this source is OK for the content that it supports (the "real problem" may have been digging up dirt to show that I was using bad sources... I don't think there were any serious concern about the content, only that the source was not obviously a systematic review).

::::::::Last question: Context= This is a relatively new procedure for disease X. Disease X has literally 200-300 different surgical procedures and variants thereof which have been proposed over time, the vast majority of which have been completely abandoned... because after a few years it became clear that they didn't work very well / had unacceptable risks. I sense this frustration because they are surgeons and they want to fix the problem, so each time a new procedure comes along everyone is enthusiastic that they finally solved this problem. So this new procedure has become quite popular without a lot of evidence of long term results. But not all surgeons are [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36511316/ jumping on the bandwagon], it should be OK to use such sources to say things like "Some have called for caution..." "Some have raised concerns about lack of evidence" and so on? This I think would be classed as biomedical information because it is classed as "Medical decisions" and "Biomedical research". In terms of being encyclopedic I think I would be good to include such opinions, even if only 1-2 sentences in the whole article.

::::::::I'm aware that it is discouraged to use the word "patient" in encyclopedia articles... I do disagree that if we use the word "patient" or "case" then we are speaking in a language that only healthcare professionals will understand. I think 100% of readers will understand what a patient is or what a case is, and these terms are not exclusionary. I understand that we are encouraged to say things like "individuals with X" or "people with X" and so on. I'll try to remember this but I think it would over the top and unnecessary to avoid these words completely. Moribundum (talk) 20:50, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::The main problem we have with the "patient" language is not that readers can't understand it; it's that people who use it are often not writing encyclopedia articles for the general public. They're writing persuasive essays aimed at their colleagues/industry, or they're writing narrative reviews.

:::::::::Systematic reviews are not always the best. Wikipedia:Biomedical information#The best type of source prefers systematic reviews only for one category. Basically, their strength is efficacy. If the question is "Does it work?", then a good systematic review is ideal. For almost anything else, they may or may not be good, but they're not usually the best.

:::::::::Content like "some have urged caution" belongs in the {{fake link|New treatment}} article, and only rarely in the {{fake link|Disease X}} article(s). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:42, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Understood, thanks for advice Moribundum (talk) 08:59, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, given your citations of WP:RFD#DELETE (particularly 8 and 10) on some recent 'no mention'-type nominations, I thought I'd pass on this discussion in case you haven't seen it. Cheers, Tule-hog (talk) 18:33, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you, @Tule-hog. I had seen it, and I had meant to comment in it. But it's been dormant for two weeks now. I'm not sure whether it's worth reviving it.

:If you have a moment to spare for this, I would value your thoughts about the big table in Category talk:Redirects to an article without mention#Providing practical information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:08, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

I’ve learned that:

1. If someone says s/he’s fine with being sanctioned, we can sanction them.
2. If someone says s/he’s fine with being killed, we can kill them!
3. If you are bu-llied, beg for forgiveness. Never argue with them. Beg like a dog, and agree with whatever they say or offer. Otherwise, you will be punished, harder, and harder, and harder!
4. When your edits align with their POV, you are bringing intellectual diversity and expertise into the community. BUT, when your edits don’t align with their POV, your edits are biased and your intent is to bring in a particular POV. Yes, you are both a valuable expert editor, and a bad, tendentious, sanctionable editor, at the same time!

No. I won’t join the discussion. I don’t want to be bullied. I have had my share of that already. Enough. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:25, 27 February 2025 (UTC); 19:35, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

:I am reflecting on the various meanings of the word hard in English. An object can be hard, meaning not soft; a task can be hard, meaning not easy. And our community can be hard, meaning unforgiving and unmerciful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:47, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

::No. It’s not “our community” who is unforgiving and unmerciful. If so, the discussion won’t last thaaaaat long. You may have misunderstood/misinterpreted the definition of “our community”. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 15:41, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

::BTW, do you mean begging for forgiveness (from your community [?]) is the right thing to do under this situation? --Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:21, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

:::When a group of editors is really determined to have an article say something (anything; the details don't matter), then it's often not worth fighting over. It's usually not possible for a lone editor to "win", no matter what definition you have for winning. To quote a mid-century version of the saying "What’s the sense of wrestling with a pig? You both get all over muddy . . . and the pig likes it." WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:44, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

::::So you are telling us that we should beg for forgiveness from the pig(s). No. It’s not about fighting to "win", or to have an article say something. It’s about begging to not to be bullied, to be able to edit articles that one likes (or has an expertise in, those may even be unrelated to the article in question ), or just to *mention* those subjects. {{pb}} PS. BTW, most of the editors in that “group of editors” you mentioned aren’t/won’t be the main contributors of the article. They’re just bystanders (who may even not understand the topic/dispute very well) with a POV. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 05:16, 2 March 2025 (UTC); 00:37, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::No, I am not telling anyone they should beg for forgiveness. I'm suggesting that sometimes the best response is to walk away. There are {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} other articles to work on. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:47, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::No. The dog can’t walk away without being ki-lled. The pig(s) won’t let it. You can choose to walk away. I have chosen to walk away. We all commit that sin. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 00:19, 3 March 2025 (UTC); 16:25, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::All the neutral rule enforcers walked away. The dog died. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 02:44, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

{{User QAIbox

| image = Bed of crocus, Ehrenbach.jpg

| image_upright = 1.3

}}

You should see me smile, about your wonderful post "assuming" for Satie! Thank you! I take my advice and inspiration from the essay quoted on my user page, also quoted for Rinaldo. Your post is indented wrong, though, not replying to the person you seem to address ;) - I'd normally simply fix it, but am determined not to be seen in that discussion. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:57, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

:All very vexatious ... Bon courage (talk) 08:58, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

{{User QAIbox

| image = Coltsfoot, Tegernsee.jpg

| image_upright = 1.3

| bold = story · music · places

}}

New month: today is the birthday of Chopin and Ricardo Kanji, see my stories of today and yesterday, with dream music by the first and Bach played by the other. - You are so good in ibox history, Chopin's is particularly interesting, with community consensus added by Brian Boulton in 2015, but ... - listening to music is more rewarding! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:37, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Today: Carmen turns 150, as the main page and my story tell you. I chose a 1962 concert of the Habanera, - enjoy! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:40, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

On Ravel's birthday, we also think of a conductor and five more composers ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:06, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Today I could have written five stories off the main page, and chose Sofia Gubaidulina. I find the TFA also interesting, and two DYK, and a birthday OTD. How about you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:40, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Today: an opera, 100 years old OTD, on Bach's birthday. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:43, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Today, 300 years of Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, BWV 1! We sang works for (mostly) double choir by Pachelbel, Johann Christoph Bach, Kuhnau/Bach, Gounod and Rheinberger! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:35, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi. If you need a bit more help to knock off your unreferenced medical articles, you could try posting a message and the list of articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Unreferenced articles. We like getting rid of backlogs! Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 23:30, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks, I'll do that right now! We are so close to finishing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:33, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

If you are {{tq|easily irritated these days}}, for whatever reason, I don't recommend debating me. Debating me sucks. I respect the wise advice you have given me and I don't want to annoy you but I am incredibly nitpicky and no one likes debating me irl or online. Polygnotus (talk) 19:07, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

:I'm not sure what you expect from me. If, by this comment, you mean to indicate that you believe yourself to actually be unable to be civil when people disagree with you, then you should stop editing Wikipedia entirely.

:If you just can't bring yourself to admit that you didn't happen to notice that they said "for me", and that these words means they're speaking of their own personal experience instead of an unlikely hypothetical (e.g., your example of a 250K talk page archive filled entirely with videos), then you could walk away from the conversation instead, or you could try re-focusing the discussion on learning about their experience, such as by asking a question along the lines of "So exactly how are those archives breaking for you? Unreadable, un-navigable, something else?" or "What's your biggest problem, in practice? I'd be happy to file a phab: ticket for you if you can give me a good user story." WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:27, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

::Unable to be civil? No, I mean exactly what I am saying: {{tq|Debating me sucks}} because I am incredibly nitpicky. Your response is based on a false assumption. Polygnotus (talk) 19:30, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

::If you want, ask me in a week or so when you feel better and I will be happy to explain just how nitpicky I am and how these things work from my POV. But this is a really silly topic to get angry about. Polygnotus (talk) 19:33, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

::You figured it out already, but for the record, I responded to {{tq|Images and other objects don't really have that much impact.}} which was written in response to me pointing out that that {{tq|250K of image embeds or 250K of video embeds or 250K of plain text in a collapse template are completely different.}} Hope you feel better. Polygnotus (talk) 21:41, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Offtopic: Please take a look at my recent edits over at Bessel van der Kolk (follow-up from User_talk:WhatamIdoing#BLP_redux). I tried implementing your suggestions but I am not sure if I am happy with the result. The sources show 2 competing narratives about the lawsuit, with few commonalities. And it looks like van der Kolk changed his story at least once (or told a different version in an interview). The criticism is taken from the article about the book, The Body Keeps the Score and of course criticism of a book is also indirectly criticism of its author, but there must be a more elegant way to deal with that (in an ideal world Wikipedia articles would not have overlap, or we could embed sections of article 1 in article 2 or whatever). Polygnotus (talk) 11:08, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

:@Polygnotus, I think it's an improvement.

:At the end of the first sentence, "brains" sounds slangy; maybe try "how the brain works" or "neurology" or something like that?

:For the additions to Bessel van der Kolk#Writings and views, you might look at WP:MEDSAY. You might need WP:INTEXT attribution for all of these, but perhaps you would decide that a shorter description would be sufficient for at least some of them. (I do not say that you should shorten these; I say only that you should read this guideline and make your own decision about what you think is best for this specific, complex situation.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Should Evolution as fact and theory be AfD-ed? This is a weird article right? Polygnotus (talk) 02:14, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:Have you read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evolution as theory and fact and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evolution as theory and fact (2nd nomination)? Do you have any reason to think a third trip to AFD would produce different results?

:The Wikipedia article's title matches a famous publication's title, but the subject might be better understood as "Difficulties related to whether evolution should be considered 'a fact' or 'a theory'". The underlying problem is not unique (Is autism a disorder? What exactly to you mean by 'autism' and 'disorder' when you answer that question?) but the available sources are pretty well developed for the evolution example. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:31, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::Hm, no I hadn't looked at the previous AfDs. The problem is, as always, language and not science (because nothing ever changes in this static world).

::If we want an article about the concepts "scientific theory" or "Fact" I'd name them that.

::If we want an article about the debate I'd name it evolution debate (which is now a redirect to Rejection of evolution by religious groups).

::And to answer your question: {{tq|Is autism a disorder?}} If you want it to be. Not long ago left-handedness was a disorder. Polygnotus (talk) 02:42, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Is evolution a fact? If you want it to be.

:::Is evolution a theory? If you want it to be.

:::That's the point of the article. The answer to those questions depends on what you mean when you use those words. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Meh, OK.

::::{{tq|"But evolution is only a theory!", which is true, I mean it is a theory and it's good they say that, I think, because it gives you hope, doesn't it? That they feel the same way about the theory of gravity and they might just float the fuck away.}} -- Tim Minchin Polygnotus (talk) 02:56, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::I've never quite understood why that comedian is so popular with Wikipedia editors. I'll see editors pounding on the table about the importance of scientific sources, and then on the next page, they're quoting a comedian, as if being a comedian with the right POV makes him a reliable source. It's weird. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:30, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Well I can answer that question; he actually did a whole bit in his latest show about why he is so popular with a certain subset of the population. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1juPBoxBdc Or maybe its not that deep. Maybe people just quote popular pop culture things at each other because the alternative is only talking about serious stuff and we'd rather be dead. Polygnotus (talk) 04:34, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::"Through history human beings have always been terrible people". I wonder if that's possible to change. (I doubt that it will happen in my lifetime, and it would probably take several lifetimes to determine whether the trend was real.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::My parents were roughly a 1000 times more empathetic than their parents, then there was a minor hiccup but my nephews are much more empathetic and in touch with their feelings than my generation is. At their age, we used to hunt the weak for sport. As you know anecdotal evidence where n=1 is the best we have. Polygnotus (talk) 00:18, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I've read that the switch to unleaded gasoline has reduced the number of violent crimes. It's a convenient natural experiment: different countries changed at different times, so you just wait for the new babies to reach age ~20 and run your numbers. So perhaps some of it is getting better. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:48, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Pretty sure it also has something to do with the fact that my generation drinks at most a beer or a glass of wine at dinner twice per week. Polygnotus (talk) 06:31, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::NIAA thinks that [https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohols-effects-health/alcohol-topics-z/alcohol-facts-and-statistics/alcohol-and-young-adults-ages-18-25 young adults] are about twice as likely as older adults to engage in heavy or binge drinking, but I'm not sure that's any different from 50 years ago. By the time people reach retirement age, a number of them have discovered that their life is better without alcohol, or they have developed other health problems that make it inadvisable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:56, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

I saw something you wrote at VPM and wanted to pass on a bit of procedural stupidity which it might be prudent to keep in mind because you never know. Technically the location however general of IPs should only be shared if it was obtained from a third-party tool. WP provides a builtin one for registered editors but for some reason its output must remain strictly confidential. Given that in a conduct dispute contending editors will bring up the darndest things against one another and adjudication is not always objective I’ve found that it’s best to try to conform to guidelines even if they’re stupid.

Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 00:25, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks for the note. I don't think that the foundation:Policy:Wikimedia Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy – for that future when we have temporary accounts here – draws a distinction between whether you put the revealed IP address through a third-party tool or used the built-in one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:57, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello! I saw that you created this page in 2017, Meta:Events/Accessibility. I am doing some work on a related topic, m:Meta:Neuro-inclusive event strategies and am hoping to organize a Wikimania 2025 workshop on accessibility topics. I'm wondering if you have expertise in this area, and if you might be interested in talking more about accessibility and Wikipedia. Hexatekin (talk) 17:32, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:Hello, @Hexatekin. I'm happy to answer any questions you have, either here or in any on-wiki discussion you ping me to.

:Glancing over what you've written so far, I think that you have a particular type of event in mind: Large, semi-public meetings that run for multiple hours or days, in a venue that you have some level of control over. Almost nothing there speaks to, e.g., an after-school club that meets in a classroom for an hour once a week.

:I notice that you've encouraged people to make the event fragrance-free, but not smoke-free. This makes me wonder if you're getting information primarily from US sources, since smoking is already banned in event venues in most US states, and fragrance bans are culturally more acceptable than they would be in other parts of the world. Finding non-US-centric sources of information might give you some additional ideas.

:If you felt like writing an ethics paper for possible real-world publication, it might also be interesting to interrogate whether this recommendation means that Black women, in particular, are being asked to take up less space, to make more room for autistic people (who, in the US, are disproportionately white and male). "Fragrance" doesn't just mean a squirt of perfume; it means laundry detergents used on your clothes and cleaning chemicals used in the venue, as well as shampoo, deodorant, and other body products. Finding low-toxicity, fragrance-free hair products that actually work for a given Black person's hair requires a lot more effort than just leaving the perfume bottle alone for a day. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:01, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello WAID,

I have several times over many years found myself asking a question of: When should one start an RfC?

I’m there again, with this MfD. It is ostensibly about labelled images that are disrespectful and forbidden in the modern workplace, and whether that standard should be applied to userpages. I see it as about respect for women, which could be worded “respect for others” and with a large part of different issues of natural justice and the right of the accused to be invited to respond before judgement is made. I.e will those participating in the MfD set a binding precedent on others who weren’t given the opportunity to opine.

Right now, I think it might be the right time to advertise the MfD at the village pump, and to wrap the mfd in an RfC, to allow more participation largely by slowing down its close.

Do you have an opinion or advice on this?

— SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:31, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:This is one of Tolstoy's "The Three Questions": What is the right time to act? If he didn't have an easy answer, then we are unlikely to do much better, but I suggest that his focus on the present, as opposed to past or future, is the right idea.

:I've glanced over the MFD. Since you pinged a large number of probably-biased editors, then you could offer an RFC as a way of making it more likely to reach a less biased group. I specifically suggest offering this, rather than boldly doing it, and seeing if anyone agrees.

:A bare {{tl|please see}} note at a village pump may not be very effective at attracting attention, but if someone's going to write a more informative description, it probably shouldn't be you. It's not that I don't trust you to write something that's fair, but since people are already complaining about WP:CANVAS, you need to be especially careful to avoid anything that could be seen as providing fuel for that flame.

:On the subject of the MFD, you seem to be focused on the procedural justice aspects, but I wonder if you've spent much time thinking about the "appropriate behavior" aspects. Imagine that this wasn't a userbox on an occasional editor's user page; imagine instead that it was a bumper sticker on his car. Think about the middle-of-the-road women you know – middle class, cisgendered, straight, maybe middle aged. A new neighbor moves in next door and has this on his car. Are they going to be thinking "Wow, it's great that he has free speech rights" or "Eeeww, now there's someone who wasn't socialized properly"? If you the latter seems plausible, then maybe we're not doing editors any favors by permitting this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:10, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you. Now, but more likely, soon. Offer, don’t boldly do it.

::I’ll not be apologising for pinging every non-blocked transcluder. I chose to ping from the MfD for transparency, far better than doing talk page notifications, because every participant including the closer can see what was done, and if the pinged comment, it is clear already that they were pinged, as a transcluder. A stakeholder, an involved editor.

::Most of them are not active anyway. I see logic to this correlation. Objectifying images/comments have been frowned upon increasingly with time.

::Focus on procedure, yes. I am a fan of WP:PPP, which ranks process above policy. I believe that userbox deletion process is poorly done, producing bad precedent, and thus bad policy. That bad policy is the lack of policy, due to userbox MfDs being few and somewhat random in their results. But yes, I have thought a lot about the behavioural aspects. Is it a girly picture with and objectifying comment in the office, in a back room, in a drawer, on a bumper? SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:32, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

::Or maybe just let the MfD play out, and follow up with a proposal to modify Wikipedia:User pages#Images that would bring the project into disrepute, which to me reads as two or three decades behind the times. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:23, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Addressing the general rule as a general rule has some advantages. The MFD may influence any such discussion, so if you are dissatisfied with the outcome of the MFD, you might want to wait a while.

:::In terms of the guideline being "behind the times", I'm not sure whether you would suggest that it should be made more accepting ("We can say rude things in public now!") or more stringent ("Seriously, people, keep it off wiki") or more procedural ("Notify everyone whose user page would be changed"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:40, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Wikipedia is definitely less tolerant of offensive behaviour.

::::How to word that as Userpage guidance, I don’t know, but the current text is not very good. Did you read the footnote? It is useless as guidance.

::::The MfD is a bit unsatisfying as it was closed before the stakeholders has enough chance to collectively fail to make good arguments. Also, the MfD was closed with !vote alleging a shocking image, but the image had been changed days earlier to something not shocking at all, all that was left bad was the objectifying text. However, I think the feeling of the community comes through. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:56, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::I missed the footnote earlier. If the meaning is "I can get away with things that will get you in trouble", then I think it's clear enough. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:56, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

:Your response have further convinced me that it is hard to write a good RfC question. One day, I’ll do one. In the meantime, I keep slipping into the easier to ask procedural questions.

:I think etiquette on Wikipedia talk pages has improved hugely, and some of these discussions and decisions on what is appropriate to post on your userpage are lagging, and I think they are lagging because the occasionally userbox mfd just doesn’t cut through. I think this is all mildly important, with subtle ramifications. It’s not worthy of Tolstoy.

:My procedural question is at Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion#Notification of transcluders of the MfD-ed userboxes. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:07, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

::I wonder whether you will get some answers about the procedural question.

::That MFD does not feel like something that will show off the community at our finest. We don't have shared community standards over things like whether you can post anti-religious content. If the userbox said the same thing except about homosexuality, it'd be deleted promptly. If it said the same thing about, say, mathematics, it'd be laughed at. If it said the same thing about something like air travel or nuclear weapons, we'd accept it as a non-threatening viewpoint. But we're not sure where to put religion: Should it be protected from overt criticism? Does it help Wikipedia if we allow public pronouncements about firmly held beliefs? If "I'm an committed atheist" is okay, is "I oppose theism" also okay? The meaning is the same, but the feeling is different. The first says "I'm me", and the second says "You're wrong". WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:06, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:08, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello WAID, I recently rewrote the above article by 90%, although there are about 3 of the original sources left (mayo clinic website and 2 book sources... sounded like the popular science type and ideally would be replaced). I'm trying to improve the quality of my edits, esp with regards MEDRS. Do you have any advice on that article? Thanks, Moribundum (talk) 11:03, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:Do you have access to Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:08, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

::Yes. MEDDATE is always hard.

::I mean not just MEDRS, but also MEDMOS. Moribundum (talk) 06:59, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

:::[1], [3], and (especially) [10] are the only ones that have significant potential for being out of date. MEDDATE encourages a five-year period, but we regularly accept ten years.

:::Overall, I really like the fact that you didn't use 100 sources, but instead found a manageable group of good sources and used them extensively. That is usually a good sign for writing a comprehensive article and avoiding UNDUE problems.

:::I'll look at it in more detail later. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:12, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Agree less than 10 years is general aim.

::::Source 1 - ICSD 3 (2014) has a newer version: ICSD 3 TR ("text revision" published 2023) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Classification_of_Sleep_Disorders#ICSD-3_(2014)_and_ICSD-3-TR_(2023)], unfortunately I can't find a copy anywhere, and I also asked on Resource request. If anyone can get hold of ICSD 3 TR, that would be ideal. As far as I can see, they made some changes to diagnostic criteria for obstructive sleep apnea, but not for "primary snoring"

::::Source 3 - I added it. Agree ideally replace with newer source

::::Source 10 - it was one of the original sources, a book mainly directed at patients. I guess we don't need it anymore, since the only content it was supporting is now supported by 2 other better sources. Removed.

::::Thanks, Moribundum (talk) 10:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Moribundum, I made a few changes, and I left a couple of comments on the talk page. Overall, I think the article is in decent shape. Here are a few more:

:::::* I think the "Mild (40-50 decibels)" bit in the ==Classification== section might benefit from a comparison (e.g., "like whispering" or "approximately the same loudness as an ordinary conversation").

:::::* Please also check "Snoring is three times more common in obese individuals": Three times "more" or three times "as" common? If it's 10% in normal-weight people, then three times "as" is 30% for obese people, and three times "more" is 40%. (See Wikipedia:Two times does not mean two times more.)

:::::* The "Genetics" section might be re-worded as "Hereditary factors". Heritable lifestyle factors are not "genetics", strictly speaking.

:::::* You have a long paragraph about the "sleeping partner", and yet I find myself wishing for more. Is there information, e.g., about separate bedrooms or ear plugs?

:::::WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:55, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::Hello, sorry didn't see this reply. Not sure why ping didn't show.

::::::I'll action the changes on the article.

::::::Re. sleeping partner, yeah I know what you mean. But I couldn't find anything in the medical sources. What we do have are hundreds of books directed at patients. But I don't know if they would be suitable sources for a medical article. On the other hand, saying that snoring may trigger a partner to need to sleep in another room is not exactly a health claim.

::::::Thanks, Moribundum (talk) 14:29, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I agree. If this were a disputed article, then I'd advise against "lay" sources, but it'll probably be fine – in limited amounts, carefully chosen, etc. You seem to have a good handle on the overall goals, so I think you'll make a good choice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:00, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

We got {{tl|uw-paid}} and {{tl|uw-coi}}. People who receive those templates interpret them as an attack, even if it is clear that they have a COI/are being paid. I don't think that that is the intention behind the templates, and people don't respond in the way we want them to (e.g. they become defensive or hostile, which is counterproductive).

I am no wordsmith, and I am about as diplomatic as a sledgehammer to the face, but I have some quick drafts that are less likely to illicit a negative response. What do you think about something like User:Polygnotus/Templates/FriendlyCOI and User:Polygnotus/Templates/FriendlyPAID? (feel free to edit them, they are drafts and far from perfect).

These are perhaps not suitable for linkspammers and the like, but there is a lot of grey area between someone who is a bit too enthusiastic about a company and a linkspammer.

My idea was to have a harsh and a friendly variant of those 2 templates. Is this a stupid idea? Should I add these as alternative templates? Would it be better to try to replace/improve the existing templates? Polygnotus (talk) 22:41, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

:@Polygnotus, I haven't looked at any of the templates yet, and yet I can already tell you: It would be better to try to replace the existing templates. You've identified a problem with what we've got, and you are not (in my experience) prone to overreacting about template tone; therefore, this is likely a real and possibly even "obvious" problem.

:Previous research (~2010) indicates that a pleasant message is more effective at the things that matter (e.g., getting newcomers to try to do better). The only thing a friendly message can't do is soothe the outraged feelings of the person posting it. And this is reality: Sometimes those messages are posted because someone is feeling angry, and they want something that really tells the newbie just how much "we" disapprove of their contributions and how hostile we feel towards them.

:Anything in the uw- series ought to be short and simple. It should start by assuming that any problems were due to lack of information instead of nefarious motivations. And it should be protected against being edited by editors who are feeling irritated by a lack of (pre-warning!) compliance. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:13, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

::Yeah I am not the pearl-clutching type; I just think we aren't achieving our goal with the current tone. {{tq|a lack of (pre-warning!) compliance}} To my eternal shame I have to admit that I hadn't read the Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use before editing. {{smiley|13}} Thank you. Polygnotus (talk) 23:41, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Fun fact: I helped write the current version of the TOU (in a very small way – I doubt that even half of a single sentence is wording I suggested). That was about 15 years ago. It's probably due for a refresh. You could read https://tosdr.org/en/service/265 but I'm not sure that I agree with their "can delete your account without warning" statement. (Ignore the comments there; that website is full of spam.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:20, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Bookmarked. Of course privacy.com gets grade E, the lowest score available! Polygnotus (talk) 01:27, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Posted over at Wikipedia_talk:Template_index/User_talk_namespace#uw-coi_and_uw-paid. Polygnotus (talk) 02:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

::::JBW is enthusiastic, if you repost your comment above there then we may be able to get this ball rolling! Polygnotus (talk) 01:04, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Just to nitpick but {{tq|This guideline states that the citations in an article should have "a consistent style"}} would be better, the guideline doesn't require it. This is irrelevant to the actual question, so I put this here rather than making a distraction. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:43, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

:Yes, that's the nature of "should". The MOS has a number of "must" requirements, but this is a "should" and AFAICT is only enforced at FAC. I have been wondering, if we get a clear answer, if the FLC folks will amend the FLCR to explicitly reject "a consistent style" (no skin off my nose if they do...).

:More importantly, if you have a "should" and no accepted reason for diverging from that recommendation, then you're unable to prevent someone from complying. It's not that you have to comply, but there is an expectation that you won't prevent another WP:VOLUNTEER from doing it, even if you think their time could be more profitably spent elsewhere. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:09, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

::It's the same with citation using commas or periods, some people care while the vast majority don't even realise it's a thing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:32, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

:::All right-thinking people know and care deeply about the serial comma. Right? Right?! WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:17, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

::::But it's usage can't be decided until all editors agree to call it an [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_i1xk07o4g Oxford comma]! -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:08, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. I'll go along with any of the names, so long as people use it. :-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:23, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, forgot to notify you earlier when I sent an email, but just remembered. Take care!

Awshort (talk) 04:54, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi there! I see you’ve listed “ Que no haya novedad” as a requested article. I studied Spanish (Castellano, to be precise) for about 8 years, including for four years as an undergrad (Spanish Language & Literature).

I’ve never heard of this phrase. Can you please elaborate? I’d be happy to begin research and begin working together to write an English-language article given my bilingual experience and knowledge of Spanish culture in general!

Lmk!

Gobucks821 (talk) 13:09, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:It's an old set phrase or saying, and I don't know if it's in modern use. I believe that a similar/related saying, "May no new thing arise", was once popular in Ireland. It seems to have some of the feel of May you live in interesting times, and perhaps a sentiment that things are going so well, or that our glory days are already in the past ("kids these days"?) that any change is likely to be the opposite of improvement.

:See [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Revista_chilena/PU5qeR_ZUtkC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Que+no+haya+novedad%22&pg=PA534&printsec=frontcover the end of this letter] for an example: 'May there be nothing new in your family' or 'May there be no news in your family', the same way we might write 'I hope this letter finds you well'. [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Aging/ycJrEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22may+no+new+thing+arise%22&pg=PR35&printsec=frontcover This book foreword] mentions it. It is used here [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Picasso_A_Biography/uFmVv8KaimkC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22may+no+new+thing+arise%22&pg=PA110&printsec=frontcover to describe Picasso's resistance to change].

:I don't know if there are enough sources to justify an article, or even a paragraph in a related article. If there are, I'd be happy for you to create it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:41, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

::The saying No news is good news also feels similar. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:52, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi again,

I had a tool to auto archive specific topics in talk pages which appeared inline for any single topic. Then it disappeared sometime in the past 2-3 months.

Last week, I autoinstalled another, similar auto archive tool. The same problem is happening: It just won’t show up within topics on talk pages.

This tool is important to me because some topics are years to a decade old or else have since been resolved, and it’s too tedious to manually archive only individual topics vs a whole page.

thnx!

Gobucks821 (talk) 13:39, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:@Gobucks821, I'm not sure what "specific topics in talk pages which appeared inline for any single topic" means. Can you show me a diff of one of those being removed from a talk page? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:51, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

::I think a better was is to show you the original script I installed. When I expanded a Talk page section, it automatically presented a button to archive just that section. I’ve also installed this newer script (second, further below), but nonetheless, I still don’t see the archive button for specific sections on the Talk pages…

::FIRST/OLDER SCRIPT (which I deleted to try the newer one, below)…

::importScript (‘User:Elli/OneClickArchiver.js'); // Backlink: [[User:Elli/OneClickArchiver.js]]

::NEWER SCRIPT (currently installed but not showing a button)…

::importScript('User:Evad37/OneClickArchiver.js'); // Backlink: User:Evad37/OneClickArchiver.js Gobucks821 (talk) 14:26, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Elli's is the newer version, so you should have more success with that. I think you need to take this question to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 213#Heading markup changes from last May suggests a potential problem, but I don't think that using Parsoid is even an option here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:20, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Oh: If you're at least semi-technical, see mw:Help:Locating broken scripts. For example, there's a (small?) chance that it's a conflict between multiple scripts. If that's the case, then removing everything except that one script should see the OneClick archiver start working again. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:23, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

{{User QAIbox

| image = Meadow with dandelion near Lindenmühle, Lindenholzhausen.jpg

| image_upright = 0.8

| bold = story · music · places

}}

Tout est lumière -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:50, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Christof May was hard to write. Please check for sensitivity. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:15, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

My story is about music that Bach and Picander gave the world 300 years (and 19 days) ago, - listen (on the conductor's birthday) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:06, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello W, do you have an opinion on the NPOV argument? I'm hoping in the future we can have that discussion at NPOV/N. IAR might be part of that discussion. The current discussion feels more like a meta-discussion which I don't expect a close on... Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:58, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:@Kolya Butternut, are you asking about Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/The term committed suicide?

:At the moment, I mostly wish people would stop trying to change MOS:SUICIDE while that discussion is open. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::Yes. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I think that NPOV is:

:::* a good reason to not use 'commit' language for deaths associated with mental illness, substance abuse, impulsivity, or impaired judgment, and also

:::* a good reason to not implement a total ban, because – rarely – the decedent was knowingly flouting a suicide-related law or otherwise trying to thwart a legitimate legal process, and it might therefore be appropriate to highlight the criminal or extralegal aspect of their decision to "commit" suicide. Personally, I would limit these to fairly shocking, reasonably "rational" actions. For example, Hitler "committed" suicide to avoid capture and being put on trial for war crimes, but the women who died at Laderan Banadero because they incorrectly believed the alternative was being brutalized by US soldiers did not.

:::WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::::That makes sense to me. Typically in our MOS we say "avoid" rather than "ban". But how do we have a functional discussion on whether NPOV applies here? Some are citing IAR or that NPOV does not apply. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:02, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::I think that people on the "Don't tread on me" side of the debate would say that others are citing IAR or that NPOV does not apply to get a traditional English phrase banned.

:::::Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/The term committed suicide currently has 496 comments from 83 different editors. That's a lot, and it's not even an RFC. Most editors don't want a total ban, but few editors actively prefer the 'committed' language. The recent comments about rejecting the sources' advice have not seen a groundswell of support. In fact, it's mostly this pair trying to get their way here, and that pair trying to win over there, and everyone else probably shaking their heads.

:::::I think that from here, the overall result of that conversation is unlikely to change. I'm satisfied with it because more editors have learned about the existence of MOS:SUICIDE and learned about the need to be careful about how we write about suicide, and because some people have learned that there is professional advice (including from non-activists) that can be applied to Wikipedia without damaging our neutrality or educational mission. I think that Wikipedia ultimately wins this conversation, even though it won't end with a simple rule like "Avoid these bad words". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:10, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::I am asking how we have a discussion about NPOV's application to "commit suicide" and whether IAR overrides that. I understand that people in favor of "commit suicide" want to ignore all rules because they believe it is common, neutral language. My question is whether the principle of IAR can override the principle of neutrality and whether editors who advocate for their truth that it is neutral language can override what is verifiable based on RS. And how do we evaluate neutrality when so many editors do not engage with the question beyond what amount to IDONTLIKEIT? Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:38, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::What I think you should do is: Not worry about theoretical discussions, when the practical work is already moving in the your preferred direction. In just the last two years, the number of Wikipedia articles using that phrase has dropped by about 30%, from 25K to 17K. That's a really big change, and it's happened with no fanfare and very little drama. Stop worrying about whether they agree with you in theory, because you are already winning in practice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I am saying I care about "this thing", not "this other thing" which you understandably suggest I care about. Do you have thoughts on the question I asked? Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::In theory, the IAR policy says all policies, guidelines, processes, rules, and advice can be ignored when that best helps an article.

:::::::::In theory, the NPOV policy exempts itself from the IAR policy.

:::::::::In practice, none of that matters, because nobody who wants to use the 'commit' language is going to argue that it's important for the article to non-neutrally use 'commit' language, so we should IAR the NPOV rules. They will instead say that in this particular instance, the 'commit' language is actually the neutral choice, as evidenced by (e.g.,) the sources about the specific decedent using that language, or the circumstances behind the death, or whatever reasons occur to them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:07, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::{{tq|the sources about the specific decedent using that language}}; this wouldn't be a valid argument because we don't use the word "negro" in wikivoice for historical Black figures just because contemporary sources do.

::::::::::So if IAR does not apply to NPOV, and editors are just arguing {{tq|whatever reasons occur to them}}, i.e., IJUSTDONTLIKEIT, then administrators should ignore those arguments in favor of source-supported NPOV arguments.

::::::::::But in practice, administrators are unwilling make such an unpopular decision on a relatively minor style guideline, or would prefer to avoid drama and let the change happen as it is currently happening in practice? Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:07, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::You would not accept that as a valid argument, but I've not said it will (or won't) be accepted. I only say they will make that argument.

:::::::::::One does not declare IAR for NPOV; it's against community values. Instead, one pledges undying fealty to NPOV and declares that the One True™ Neutral approach is whatever it is that the editor wanted to do anyway, for whatever reasons occur to them, which should be called "using common sense" (which is itself a policy-approved rationale).

:::::::::::After the initial declarations, it's a matter of negotiation and persuasion. There will usually not be an admin lurking about to make any decisions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:02, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::I was speaking in the context of a theoretical RFC focused on its neutrality where there would be an administrator closing it. I don't see why it matters what people will say; if their arguments didn't make sense administrators are supposed to ignore them. Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:10, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::And if the admin or the WP:NAC thinks that the argument does make sense, then they are supposed to take that argument into account.

:::::::::::::In the case of a hypothetical RFC, it's possible that the facts and circumstances would tend towards inclusion. For example, if there were an RFC over Death of Adolf Hitler or Death of Cleopatra, I would expect editors to make a pretty convincing argument that using the "commit" language was consistent with the NPOV policy, and that the modern style guides are not intended either to de-stigmatize anything related to Hitler or ancient queens. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:31, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::I am talking about an RFC over including "avoid 'commit suicide' in wikivoice" in MOS in contexts where suicide is not illegal or a sin by a religious or other authority discussed in the article.

::::::::::::::It doesn't make sense to say Cleopatra "committed suicide" because that's not neutral. Same for Hitler is that wasn't a crime.

::::::::::::::Again, this is like if we were discussing calling historical black figures "negro" in wikivoice. It's not just about "commit suicide" being offensive; it's non-neutral. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:56, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::What exactly is "not neutral" about saying that Cleopatra and Hitler committed deliberate actions while sane? They killed themselves to avoid the consequences of losing a war. If they had been able to physically run away from their soon-to-be (or possibly already, in Cleopatra's case) captors, you would have said that physically running away was an action they committed. Why is putting themselves beyond their captors' power by the most extreme method possible not also an action they "committed"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:30, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::Huh?? For all of the reasons I had been arguing at the discussion for why the word committed is inappropriate; essentially it means perpetrated; that is not a neutral word. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:43, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::{{tq|physically running away was an action they committed}}; how does that make sense? Do you mean like a fugitive committing the crime of evading arrest? I don't think that's comparable. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:45, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::Yes, exactly. Hitler perpetrated an action that denied justice to the rest of the world. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:33, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::Citation needed for new sources on Hitler's suicide.

::::::::::::::::::But I digress. I am talking about an RFC over including "avoid 'commit suicide' in wikivoice" in MOS in contexts where the sources are not making moral or legal judgements about the suicide.

::::::::::::::::::I'm not really seeing any policy based arguments for neutrality except ignoring modern sources in favor of more abundant sources with outdated language, which again makes as much sense as describing a BLP subject as a negro because more was written about him in the sixties. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:21, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::I understand that there are quite a lot of sources making moral judgments about Hitler evading justice.

:::::::::::::::::::Ergo, in such a situation, it is not non-neutral to use "commit" language in that instance. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:15, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::I am talking about an RFC over including "avoid 'commit suicide' in wikivoice" in MOS in contexts where the sources are not making moral or legal judgements about the suicide. I am not seeing policy based NPOV arguments against this proposal, are you? Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:35, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::::I'm not seeing a snowball's chance in the hot place of any such RFC having the result you want. I think your best strategy right now is to avoid creating "precedents" that The Community™ has formally rejected your preference. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:09, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::::Yes I understand that, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm asking if you think there isn't really any sound argument against the proposal? Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:29, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::::::I think there are no arguments against it that you would accept as sound. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:08, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::::::I am asking if you personally think there is any sound argument against the proposal? Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:00, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::::::::I think there is. I think that when high-quality modern sources are overtly condemnatory (e.g., the Hitler example), then Wikipedia should not insert its own editorial bias, but should instead fairly and proportionately represent the sense of the reliable sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::::::::I am asking, do you personally think there is any sound argument against avoiding "commit suicide" in wikivoice in contexts where the sources are not making moral or legal judgements about the suicide? Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:02, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::::{od}

::::I think it's a misleading question. "After we make exceptions for all the identified reasons why this would be appropriate, do you think it's appropriate in the remaining cases?" Obviously no. Also, I believe that coffee tastes good except for all the parts that taste bad, that chocolate cake is a healthful food except for all the unhealthful ingredients, and that you should always follow traffic laws except for all the times you shouldn't. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:11, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Are you saying that you personally think contexts where the sources are making moral or legal judgements are the only exceptions for why "commit suicide" would be appropriate? Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:43, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::I'd want to spend a lot more time thinking about possible scenarios before I agreed to such a statement. However, I think that at minimum that is the largest (i.e., by volume) exception. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:46, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Do we say that someone committed adultery in wikivoice in non-legal descriptions? Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:11, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=%22committed+adultery%22&sourceid=Mozilla-search&ns0=1 Several hundred times], apparently. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:28, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::And is that appropriate? Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:40, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Possibly? I'd have to read the articles and the sources to know. We use the word philandering a bit more often, and the phrase "had an affair" much more often. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:04, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Extramarital affair seems to be the encyclopedic term. Anyway, the article on Hitler and his suicide might be a good place to start investigating the use of commit suicide there. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:25, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::I think there can be more than one encyclopedia term.

::::::::::::If you actually want to minimize the use of this phrase, I'd suggest editing articles that have a less emotionally fraught subject. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=%22committed+suicide%22+deepcat%3A%221990s+suicides%22&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&advancedSearch-current=%7B%22fields%22%3A%7B%22deepcategory%22%3A%5B%221990s+suicides%22%5D%7D%7D&ns0=1 Look at these], for example. I'd bet that quite a few need work to bring them into compliance with MOS:SUICIDE. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:06, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::The Hitler subject is more interesting. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::The Hitler subject is more likely to result in editors trying to create a firm rule against your POV that will last for the rest of my life. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:47, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::I guess I'll need your help then. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:08, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

{{od}}

:::Re {{tq|I mostly wish people would stop trying to change MOS:SUICIDE while that discussion is open}}, I do not see any edits relating to the discussion, and as you did not address me specifically I will behave as though your comment was not about me. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:09, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Although I do appreciate you reverting one of the other edits from last month, as I consider the change from "many" to "some" to have introduced a factual error, I really wish that nobody at all, including you, had touched that section in the last month. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:13, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I found myself thinking about [https://rethinkingschools.org/articles/i-wont-learn-from-you/ this essay] by Herbert Kohl today, and thought it might be of interest. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:49, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks, it's an interesting essay.

:It looks like Herbert R. Kohl could use some work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:07, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::There are so many pages that could use some work, and many others that would be good to create, and talk / noticeboard discussions that would be good to have. Maybe someday I'll work on improving the article on Kohl, but right now I'm not even getting to a couple of other educators already on my list (Philip Treisman and Lee Shulman), as I'm instead focused on improving articles about some of the things that are occurring in the Trump administration, where I'm also thinking about creating a couple of articles. At some point I also want to get back to the WP:SPS issue.

::I find the Kohl essay useful in thinking about some interactions in discussions here, including my own occasional resistance to learning. FactOrOpinion (talk) 12:37, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Yes, we have plenty of opportunities to improve articles.

:::I've been wondering about the CTOP areas recently. Specifically, I've been wondering whether there are a handful of things that we have to explain over and over, and whether it might be useful to write them down somewhere. For example: Yes, the article Woman intentionally includes some information woman-because-gender-identity and not just woman-because-ovaries. No, Pseudoscience should not be used as a generic smear word just because you found one source that uses the word; give an accurate description, even if that means using sharp words like "perpetrated a criminal fraud" instead of "is pseudoscientific". Yes, Antisemitism and Anti-Zionism are different things. No, we are not changing articles just because Trump issued a proclamation. (Why is there still no article about the No kings (slogan)? There was a [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-90&pages=No_Kings spike in pageviews] for the No Kings music album in February, but there is no hatnote pointing to the slogan.)

:::I'm not sure if it would help. I'm also not sure if we could keep it to, say, the top 10 basic mistakes, instead of a book-length exposition on all the ways in which a CTOP article can go wrong. I'm not sure that the community would have the willingness to defend such pages against POV pushers. It might even make it harder for consensus to change over time.

:::But imagine that I took an area like Wikipedia:Contentious topics/American politics, and I wrote a "How to stay neutral in CTOP/American politics" page, or a "First ten things to know about editing American politics articles". What do you find yourself repeating, especially to new editors and POV pushers in that area? Would it be useful to be able to say "Please read WP:10AP #4" just like you can already say "Please see WP:ELNO#EL4" or "I think this is WP:DISRUPTSIGNS #3"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:50, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I think some of these things are more appropriately addressed with a Talk page FAQ or Current consensus section (like this one). As for more general issues, here are a few off the top of my head (if you disagree with any of them, please say):

::::* There's a difference between editorial bias and source bias. NPOV asks us to minimize editorial bias. Source bias is allowed, if use of the source is otherwise consistent with policies. Also, content from WP:NPOV that sometimes needs repeating: NPOV does not mean representing all views equally, but representing them in proportion to their treatment in RSs.

::::* GREL sources can make mistakes, so GREL ≠ reliable for everything it says. We shouldn't knowingly introduce false content, even if there are GREL sources saying it.

::::* Some sources present measures of news bias, but these are not as objective as they make themselves out to be; subjective choices influence where neutral is and how far from neutral a source is, even if these appear to be the result of a neutral math calculation. Subjective judgments about where neutral is may be different in different countries, different in different communities within a country, different between different editors.

::::* That you believe something strongly doesn’t guarantee that it’s true, and it may not even be a T/F kind of claim.

::::* That you believe WP's judgment about a source's general (un)reliability is due to editors’ CTOP views — rather than the source’s fact-checking, etc. — doesn't guarantee that that’s correct. That said, each editor should try to be careful about their personal values influencing their judgments about reliability.

::::I will say that I sometimes worry about my own biases / adherence to NPOV, in the sense that my choices about which sources to read aren’t themselves neutral, and my judgments about the proportionality aspect of NPOV are influenced by what I read. I’ll sometimes search for RSs with views that are different from my own, if I think they're underrepresented in an article relative to coverage in RSs, and I certainly don’t remove content just because it’s inconsistent with my political views, but other times I don’t feel like looking for RSs that promote ideas I disagree with. For example, in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Response_to_the_Department_of_Government_Efficiency&diff=prev&oldid=1284178530 this version] of the Response to the Department of Government Efficiency article, I believed that the Support section was shorter than it should be, but I just didn’t feel like putting my time into looking for RSs about that to make the article more consistent with NPOV. (Selbsportrait has since edited that article significantly, and I don’t know whether it’s as unbalanced now.) I doubt that I’m alone in these kinds of choices. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:58, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Those points apply to everything, and a talk-page FAQ (of which I've written more than the average editor, so obviously I think they're helpful) is pretty narrow. I'm wondering if something should be in that in-between range. For example, big enough to cover all (or at least most?) of WP:AP2 but not so big that it covers every WP:CTOP. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:13, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::I do edit a lot of AP2 articles, but nothing comes to mind for me at that in-between level. I'll try to keep the question in mind as I edit, and if I notice something, I'll let you know. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:50, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Thanks. I'd appreciate that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:09, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:09, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

You're an experienced Wikipedia editor. You know better than to post things like this. Your "summary" implies I'm trying to do something completely different from what I say I'm trying to do, and what I am in fact trying to do.

This is deeply unconstructive, and directly at odds with one of the most basic behaviour guidelines on Wikipedia.

We are discussing an article that does not represent reliable sources in a balanced way. Arguing that this needs fixing does not in any way imply that I (or anyone else) expects it to represent my own point of view. Oolong (talk) 07:52, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:@Oolong, I think that's exactly what's happening at Autism, and that it's been happening since long before your first edit there four years ago.

:Here is the situation:

:* There exist (in reliable sources; in the real world) a range of views on a given subject. For simplicity, we will say that the range is a continuum that runs from A to Z. Each source (and the Wikipedia article) can be placed on that continuum. Alice Expert writes a book that is "J"; Prof. I.M. Portant writes an article that is "Q"; a fringe scientist is "Z"; an activist's magazine article is "B"; and so on.

:* A Wikipedia editor believes the Wikipedia article is unbalanced. This belief might be because the Wikipedia article actually is unbalanced, or this belief might be because the Wikipedia article is balanced but the editor's own POV, and (this is important:) therefore the sources the editor is familiar with, falls towards one end or the other. To use the continuum from the first point, the Wikipedia article (on average/taken as a whole; assuming there were some magical way to accurately assess it) might be "P" but be perceived as "H" by this editor and be perceived as a perfectly balanced "middle M" by another editor.

:* The editor proposes moving the article somewhat towards what the editor perceives to be the middle. Note: not "to the middle in absolute terms", but "to the middle, according to what one human, with all their own biases, knowledge gaps, and limitations, understands the middle to be".

:This is not specific to Autism. This happens in every WP:CTOP article. It is not a bad thing, so long as we understand what's going on. Specifically, we have to remember that an editor saying that an article isn't balanced on the "middle M" doesn't mean that the article actually has a problem, and even when we agree that it does have a problem, that doesn't mean that the editor's recommendation would produce an article at "M".

:You happen to believe that the Autism article is not "M". (I agree.) You probably think it's not even close to "M". And you have proposed two solutions to get Autism to "M", or at least as close to "M" as humanly possible:

:# to "rebalance this entry" so that Autism matches your perception of the middle "M", or

:# to "split it: we could have one entry on autism as a medical concept (i.e. Autism Spectrum Disorder)".

:You have proposed (as one of two options) that Autism represent your viewpoint about where "M" actually is, and that other content can be shunted to a separate article.

:About Wikipedia:Assume good faith: I assume that you have made this proposal out of a deep desire to help Wikipedia. Have you read that guideline? It begins this way: "Assuming good faith (AGF) means assuming that people are not deliberately trying to hurt Wikipedia, even when their actions are harmful." I am convinced that you are not deliberately trying to hurt Wikipedia.

:What I'd like you to understand about AGF is that it is possible to try to help Wikipedia and still engage in POV pushing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::Your summary claimed that what I want is for the article to "represent my POV, and if necessary, other POVs should be shunted to a separate article."

::Can you see how this is a gross misrepresentation? Can you see how the accusation that I simply want it to represent my point of view is a clear accusation of bad faith - even with the caveat you've flagged up here?

::'My POV' strongly suggests my POV on autism, not my POV on what a balanced article about it would look like; these are completely different propositions.

::Many of your contributions to this discussion have been constructive to some degree, but this is, I think, at least the third time that you have posted something claiming to be a 'summary' which has completely misunderstood or misrepresented what people broadly aligned with the idea of neurodiversity are pushing for. Oolong (talk) 17:02, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:::No, I cannot see that how saying someone wants an article to represent the POV that they believe to be true and correct, or the balance of POVs that they believe to be neutral, is an accusation of that person deliberately trying to harm Wikipedia.

:::Can you see how saying that you'd like to have most of the medical content to be taken out of Autism and relegated to a separate page (Autism spectrum disorder) would have the effect of downplaying the medical POV? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:36, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello WhatamIdoing. Thank you for your valuable contributions to the discussion at Talk:Copts. In an attempt to reach a reasonable compromise for the article, I proposed removing the main point of contention raised by the other party, and came up with the following. I would appreciate your comment on whether or not you would support this version. Thank you again.

Copts are the descendants of the ancient Egyptians, and are the heirs of the ancient Egyptian heritage.{{Cite EB1911 |wstitle= Copts |volume= 7 |last= Butler |first= Alfred J. |author-link= Alfred J. Butler |pages= 113-116 |short=1}}Coptic Egypt : The Christians of the Nile. Thames & Hudson; First edition (January 1, 2001). {{ISBN|978-0500301043}}On Islam And Its Centuries-Long Battle Against Christianity. November 26, 2013.[https://mikechurch.com/kevin-gutzman-islam-centuries-long-battle-christianity/]The Story Of The Copts. St. Anthony Coptic Orthodox Monastery publications. Published January 1, 1978. ASIN ‏: ‎ B00NHR2KJW. Page 247Tadros, Mariz (2013). Copts at the Crossroads: The Challenges of Building Inclusive Democracy in Contemporary Egypt. Oxford University Press. {{ISBN|978-977-416-591-7}}.A Sword Over the Nile. Page 24-25. June 30, 2020. Publisher ‏ : ‎ Austin Macauley Publishers LLC. {{ISBN|978-1643787619}}A Sword Over the Nile. Page 24. June 30, 2020. Publisher ‏ : ‎ Austin Macauley Publishers LLC. {{ISBN|978-1643787619}}Encyclopedia of Stateless Nations: Ethnic and National Groups Around the World: Ethnic and National Groups Around the World, Second Edition, Vol Second edition, Greenwood; 2016, page 108[https://www.woolf.cam.ac.uk/blog/coptic-identities-as-indigenous-the-politics-of-recognition-improving-interfaith-relations-in-egypt][https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2011/may/11/coptic-christians-ancient-egypt][https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-10/who-are-egypts-copts/8429634]Bulletin de l’association des amis des églises et de l’art copte (counted as BASC) 1 (1935): pp.43-59. This link to ancient Egypt emphasizes cultural, linguistic, and historical continuity, framing Coptic identity as distinct from the Arab and Islamic influences that later shaped Egypt. Genetic studies and scholarly analyses highlight a broad continuity and affinity between Copts and other Egyptians, and their ancient Egyptian ancestors, demonstrating a largely shared and stable genetic heritage rather than a strict, isolated lineage.{{citation needed}} Epenkimi (talk) 11:54, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:Epenkimi, I'm not fond of this version. All the proposals I've seen have problems with Wikipedia:Citation overkill.

:More specifically, I'm not sure that we should say that the Copts are "the" descendants of the ancient Egyptians, because that implies that nobody else is. Similarly, are they really "the" heirs of the ancient Egyptian heritage, and nobody else? What does it even mean to be the heirs of ancient Egyptian heritage? Aren't all Egyptians, or even all humans, recipients of some part of ancient Egyptian heritage? They're called World Heritage Sites in Egypt, not "national heritage sites", after all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:01, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your contribution to the RfC at WT:NBA. The thing is, I forgot to clarify in the proposal that it was supposed to be for the lead. If it isn't too much trouble, do you think you could go back to your comment and edit it to specify if you want it in the lead, or just in the legacy sections of the articles? Ladtrack (talk) 19:42, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Should we list every terrorist who visited a mosque, or got married there, on the article about that mosque? It is a bit weird because we don't really do that for famous people who are not terrorists.

Even some dude who turned out to be innocent [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jami_Mosque_%28Toronto%29&diff=1286499724&oldid=1286499198 was] listed.

I know religious people who visit their preferred type of place of worship where ever they go. Polygnotus (talk) 08:20, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:I would expect articles about Catholic churches to mention whether the Pope visited. I would expect the same to be true for some other famous people. Isn't there a church in Washington, DC that a lot of presidents attended over the year? It would be strange not to mention it. If the Kardashians were members of a notable church, or one of them got married at a notable church, I can't imagine the article about that church not mentioning it.

:I would also expect church-related criminals to have that mentioned (e.g., sexual abuse perpetrated by church staff) and for at least "celebrity" criminals (e.g., Wild West gunslingers) to be mentioned if they have a connection. Think of it as the George Washington Slept Here phenomenon. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:09, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::Well, I checked, and we don't do that for followers of other faiths. And we don't do that for notable people who aren't alleged terrorists.

::And religious people who travel around a bit during their lives attend a bunch of different places of worship.

::{{tq|I would expect the same to be true for some other famous people.}} It is pretty difficult to figure out which notable people went to which synagogues or churches or gurdwara or whatever. Polygnotus (talk) 21:12, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::I checked a "Churches in x" category but I found nothing comparable. There are a few [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?go=Go&search=%22Notable%20congregants%22&title=Special%3ASearch&ns0=1&searchToken=ey5du5nwp5l8k3v1vv8pyt3zv "Notable congregants"] sections on Wikipedia (mostly unsourced), but they list mayors and judges and the like; not the criminals and alleged terrorists. The sources about the mosque also don't mention those people, and it appears to be a WP:SYNTH problem. Polygnotus (talk) 21:39, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::St. John's Episcopal Church, Lafayette Square will be exceptional in this regard; it's a bit like asking whether St George's Chapel, Windsor Castle will mention that the British royal family attends services there. Looking a little further, Trinity United Church of Christ has a paragraph in the lead about Obama having been a member, and the refs indicate that Oprah is also a former member. Christ Church (Oyster Bay, New York) says that Teddy Roosevelt attended. All Souls Church, Unitarian (Washington, D.C.) claims three early US presidents. Reagan's church in California was Bel Air Church#Congregation, and it names four famous members.

:::See also Religious affiliations of presidents of the United States. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:50, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Doesn't that prove my point? Obama and Queen Elizabeth are slightly more famous than Hassan Almrei. Oprah may be a horrible person but she is very very famous. Early US presidents get worshiped by people who don't understand history and are very famous. I don't think Hassan Almrei has reached the level of fame of, for example, Teddy Roosevelt. What I don't see is a comparable situation where an article about a place of worship (church/synagogue/whatever) lists all the (marginally) notable crimimals/murderers/rapists/terrorists who attended that church/synagogue or got married there. Polygnotus (talk) 22:55, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Well, I was checking for very famous people, because it was an easy thing to search for.

:::::I agree that it would be very odd to have a list of notable attendees restricted to notable terrorists, especially for a large outfit. (Some tiny outfit might only have one 'claim to fame', after all.) I'm not enamored of ==Notable alumni== lists in university articles, so I think my bias against such lists extends to other organizations. But it is concerning that someone thinks only Bad™ people should be listed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:41, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_of_Oxford&diff=1286930680&oldid=1286753060 Here ya go]. You can do Cambridge. Polygnotus (talk) 22:10, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Let's see how long that change sticks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:25, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Probably won't be long because people who have strong opinions generally speaking don't care about consensus; but it is worth a try. I see no reason why WP:SPLIT and WP:SUMMARY and WP:UNIGUIDE should be ignored. Polygnotus (talk) 22:29, 22 April 2025 (UTC)