This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
For protecting Wikipedia's universality! Magioladitis ( talk) 22:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC) |
I am not into barnstarts - but you need one for your judicious negotiating the conversation at Medicine project - keep it up ! JarrahTree 03:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello, WhatamIdoing.
I saw your comment over at VPM. |
Hello, WhatamIdoing. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate the info you’ve provided me, on the discussion about external links. And for being a rebuttal to people treating Wikipedia like a delicate flower rather than a platform to educate and inform. Tmbirkhead ( talk) 22:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC) Tmbirkhead ( talk) 22:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
THANK YOU for your help!
Odd Höglund (SLU) (
talk)
13:37, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
The Happy Holiday Barnstar | ||
How about combining a Barnstar with a Christmas Card? That is why this message is appearing on your talk page. Simultaneously and at the same time, this barnstar is conferred upon you because during this past year you worked and contributed your time to improve the encyclopedia. You also have received far too little recognition for your contributions. In addition, this is a small attempt at spreading holiday cheer. I've appreciated all the things that you have done for me. The Best of Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ and Merry Christmas 01:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC) |
I did a little improvement. All disorders and symptoms related to urination are defined differently as far as I know. I wasn't interested in the discussion on the med talk page for my own reasons but there seems to be a general lack of understanding of incontinence and urinary disorders. I expect that understanding will begin to improve as more editors enter their 50's. Experiencing all things urological will generate a keen interest in these topics. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ and Merry Christmas 23:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 15:36, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2018! | |
Hello WhatamIdoing, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this
seasonal occasion. Spread the
WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas and a
Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2018. Spread the love by adding {{ subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
Happy New Year! Best wishes for 2018, — Paleo Neonate – 22:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC) |
While you are completely in the right to alert other related P&G talk pages about the RFC at NCORP, please be aware the message should be neutral per WP:CANVAS; some of your messages like the one to WT:V seem biased. -- Masem ( t) 06:40, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't understand this summary. [1] I not was contesting the IP's interest in the article. I was contesting the addition of what appear to be inappropriate Wikiproject banners to this and other articles by an IP who is not a member of the projects. If members of the projects in question think the articles are valid topics for their projects and want to take them on then that's up to them. That's why I linked to the articles from the projects. Meters ( talk) 05:37, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, thank you very much for the barnstar. I am still wrestling with the topic. - SusanLesch ( talk) 14:26, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
:-)
WhatamIdoing (
talk)
17:03, 21 March 2018 (UTC)I see that, for medical articles, Wikipedia is no longer primarily a collaboratively edited text & image encyclopaedia, but a platform for documentaries created by a private third party. Videos which Wikipedians have no ability to edit, nor our readers any ability to verify facts against sources. This is not Wikipedia. -- Colin° Talk 11:05, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Here's another concern, WAID. While working to return to active medical editing, I have found myself spending excessive time on debacles like this to the extent that it is hard to get work done. When did we stop caring about our core content? What I have gone through on the talk page of DLB is ... not a good thing. Endlessly working through issues that are driven by off-en.wiki endeavors, while I am trying to do a much-needed major rewrite of a seriously outdated article. These videos are a big problem everywhere I see them, and they are a timesink, and our efforts at WP:MED need to somehow be redirected back to the big picture-- our content. This should not be an editor problem-- we should be able to delete them according to various policies and guidelines, without seeing edit warring from Doc James to keep in COI paid editor content. Every place I look, it seems that the project has lost its way-- a "way" established by Colin when he started MEDRS. Best, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
In the category of practical strategizing, I think that it would be good to make a list of all the problems, and then pick one that we want to solve (first). Here's a list that I've seen mentioned here so far:
Does that sound like a reasonably complete list of the problems? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 05:46, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, I very much like your list above. I knew there were still some rational level-headed people left on the project. In contrast I have received no end of personal attacks from Jtdog and Doc James. I have lost count of the number of times "bullshit" is mentioned, and there are some people who need to put a few coins in the swear jar and go sit on the naughty step for a while.
I am planning to start an essay to address the issue primary of long videos. As you say, some of these issues affect other media too. This can concentrate on areas where I hope there is a chance of progress, whereas the other concerns of content created by private foundations, of COI editing, proxy editing, paid editing, edit warring and bullying are ongoing and well known to many on Wikipedia who seem to be in no rush to do anything about it. The WP:MED deity-bully is a problem for others to recognise and solve.
I think the main emphasis should be that it is through text alone that Wikipedia is collaboratively edited. Text is also by far the primary means of delivering educational content. It is an encyclopaedia, after all, not a TV station or YouTube channel. It is only via text that we can provide in-text citations to sources. It is only through text that we can examine what changes each editor made. Text is the only content actually hosted on Wikipedia (with the exception of some non-free images, and whatever images have not yet been transferred to Commons). We only have editing and behavioural policies for text.
One big issue is that of watchlists. It is by watching articles (and examining the diffs of edits) that our content is cared for by long-term Wikipedians. This is simply not possible for AV media. The videos on Commons have a contribution history of one [2]. Therefore they are (likely to be) on only one person's watchlist. A person who edits Commons infrequently, and not since 22 Feb, and who may change jobs and retire his account. We then have videos that could be modified by anyone at any time and without anyone on Wikipedia being aware. Unless you sit through all 8 minutes of each one.
Another issue is that even if it was practical to edit the videos -- let's say that someone developed an open set of graphic design tools and a text-to-speech narration, with full source-materials uploaded. Commons is not a collaboratively edited project. It is just a file repository. See Commons: Overwriting existing files. Unless you are making the most minor and non-controversial change, Commons does not permit you to overwrite an existing file. You must fork and create a new file. This file in turn has exactly one watchlister and the person watchlisting the previous file is left dangling, as their content is no longer used. Of course, the Commons guideline is frequently ignored and anyone with nefarious reasons to edit a video would not announce their edit by replacing the article link to a different file.
Commons hates when Wikipedia content disputes spill over into Commons. So dealing with edit behaviour issues is complicated. Commons is not concerned with the pillars of Wikipedia such as neutrality, verifiability, etc.
The CC licence requires that when an editor creates a derivative work, they document what changes were made and which content is produce by whom. It also requires all editors are given equal billing in any credits. On Wikipedia this is done via the file history and diffs to show what each editor did. For media, we have no diff. Unless editors wish to fill the file-description page with tedious "At 3m20s I changed the words "patient" to "person with epilepsy"" notes... not going to happen.
These are the problems. And I'm sure there are more. My mind boggles that anyone considered this suitable for Wikipedia. -- Colin° Talk 08:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
I have created Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not YouTube. It is a start. Constructive supporting edits are most welcome. Anyone with opposing views is of course welcome to create their own article, or rant on the talk page. -- Colin° Talk 12:16, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
I am thinking of taking another approach. It has struck me that the entire focus of WP:MED, relative to what it was in the days when we got MEDMOS and MEDRS up to guideline status, has switched from wikipedia-internal content and article improvement drives, to wikipedia-external applications, collaborations and approaches.
Now, whether one stands on the side of either set of efforts or foci having been helpful or harmful, it is clear we aren't talking to each other or having any sense of what the others are up to, or so disturbed about. Specifically, I see no recognition from the proponents of external efforts of how much the proponents of internal article content creation and improvement drives believe that the medicine project, and medical content, have been damaged by the externally oriented efforts. They probably say the same about those who think like me (although most of us gave up and left). I know that most of them (not all, and this project should deal with its abusive members) are undeniably acting in good faith and mystified about why some others are so upset about guidelines we helped create being undermined, along with quality content we helped build. Doc James specifically said on my talk page that he has no interest in building what I consider to be featured content, [3] and that got me thinking. I'd rather work 1,000 days to build 1 article like nothing else that can be found on the internet; he'd rather work on 1,000 articles in 1 day-- broadly sums up very different priorities.
So, if I were to build the history of the medicine project, and explain it from that angle, would that be helpful, or just create further division? See my sandbox: how on earth did we get here from there? Can this approach be used to build understanding and bring some WP:MED project focus back on internal collaborations to build quality content? This is not it, and I'll take it to FAR if we get through the video business. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:29, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your kindness explaining this to me! You're right, I want to know. I thought they improved the presentation, oops ... I have removed the blank lines of my messages here.
Best regards. -- BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 19:01, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
(here
phabricator/T169741.)
Hi WhatamIdoing, and thanks for your interest in the matter. Your say:
- "The system should stop dumping new editors into the visual mode."
- "Any editor who wants two tabs can go to https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/Spécial:Préférences#mw-prefsection-editing and choose "Show me both editor tabs"."
- " Perhaps this information could be posted to the village pump"
- "or even added to https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/Modèle:Bienvenue ?"
- "...disregard a community recommendation if they believe the result will be worse for the target audience."
What happened when I tried to use that VE is a long (and depressing) story. The summary of it is that try as may, I did not see anything transmitted from the edit boxes to the actual page. So to me there is nothing "visual" to it, this is specialist language and newcomers can't be expected to know what it means. I've had to put a sticker on my comp' that says "NO "Visual Ed"" because my natural tendency is to trust you guys and I must remind myself that that "visual" is not what it says it is. You just can't expect newcomers to understand what each corresponds to. That's why you are 100% right when you say 'stop dumping new editors into the visual mode', and I.T. being unpredictable for many of us it's also right to give a tab on the same screen to get back to the useful editor when the other one accidentally kicks in.
Thanks much for your attention. I hope it'll get sorted soon. Best wishes for the day :) Pueblopassingby ( talk) 12:56, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps you would be able to recruit someone to sort the mess at Frontotemporal dementia? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
barnstar นี้ได้รับรางวัลเพื่อรับรู้ถึงผลงานที่ดีโดยเฉพาะอย่างยิ่งกับวิกิพีเดียเพื่อให้คนรู้ว่าการทำงานหนักของพวกเขาจะเห็นและชื่นชม Lovelynam27 ( talk) 08:21, 25 April 2018 (UTC) |
The 2017 Cure Award | |
In 2017 you were one of the top ~250 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs. |
Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 02:54, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi WhatamIdoing, so the article I wrote was just about to appear on the DYK section of the front page (exciting!), but it got pulled back just before it went up as Gatoclass wanted some clarification of the hook. I believe I have addressed his concerns, both in the article [4], and in the DYK nomination page [5] for the article, though if you think you can improve on my explanation of the term 'clinical event' in the article, feel free to improve on it, as it would be most helpful. Kind regards Calaka ( talk) 00:44, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Non-science at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 00:16, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Non-science at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! SteveMcCluskey ( talk) 15:41, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
You are a remarkable editor in many ways. You would be a good administrator in my opinion, and appear to be well qualified! You personify an administrator without tools, and have gained my support; already! |
I was flabbergasted, like never before, to learn that you are not an admin already. If it's not personal, would you mind telling your stalkers and me why you are not? I think you would easily succeed an RfA, and I'm certain you'd be an excellent administrator; just as you are a colleague extraordinaire! Sincerely.-- John Cline ( talk) 09:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
75.145.160.153 ( talk) 18:28, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Good point, on |+ Examples
. I think I would have done this in prose, though: "Examples are provided in the tables below", instead of redundantly using the same caption over and over. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
00:28, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Don't know if you're still watching that essay, but there's some new desultory talk on its talk page about promoting it to a guideline. I just made this edit to address some of the things you and I raised back in 2012 the last time this came up. You'll recall that the effort to promote it died out back then, so there's not been any real need to address these issues since it's only been an essay since then. Frankly, I don't think that there's going to be any real effort to promote it this time, either, but just in case... There's other issues which also need to be addressed (conflicts between scholarly and popular sources being the main one), but this edit hits the worst ones, I think. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 17:42, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
My point is that you are asserting that Esterel is an old, obscure language suitable only for simple things like traffic light controllers. That is what Gerard Berry would find humorous.
In fact, Esterel is a modern, actively used family of languages used for incredibly complex things such as the 120 million lines of code that run an Airbus 380.
Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbelknap ( talk • contribs) 23:31, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Five years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
... and six -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Re Special:Diff/852742770, not sure if you noticed, but that discussion was closed. Did you want to move your comment to the active discussion at Wikipedia talk:Interface administrators? I said the same thing there, so your reply as worded will still make sense. — MusikAnimal talk 02:15, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Non-science at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset ( talk) 17:24, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback over at WP:Medicine. I'm not sure if you saw my reply there, but I removed the link to the search results and replaced it with the authority control template. Do you have another minute to review my proposed draft to see if it's in a publishable state?-- FacultiesIntact ( talk) 00:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello WAID,
It's been a while. I miss our conversations.
RE: "The source's audience must also be considered"?
I dislike the wording and tried to improve it. User:TonyBallioni quickly disagreed (I am guessing thinking of this discussion).
To my surprise, WikiBlame blames you for these words. Your edit was to make a quite differently structured paragraph. I note that you introduced the tricky semicolon, which I find confuses unfamiliar readers.
Can you comment on my thoughts, that passive "must"s are a poor way to write guidance? It reminds me of an old professor espousing opinions on how things must be done, disconnected to what people doing things are actually doing. When the doers meet the rule espouser, they communicate inefficiently, because the passive "must" doesn't speak to modifying a behaviour. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:04, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
;-)
)
WhatamIdoing (
talk)
05:01, 7 September 2018 (UTC)Hello! Your submission of Non-science at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Boud ( talk) 01:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi! Friendly reminder to check out my updated edit on the JDRF talk page! I pinged you, but am uncertain if you saw it. Your suggestions were greatly appreciated and I included them in the update. Let me know if you have any further thoughts, or if you find it is good as is, feel free to put it up! Thanks again for your time, patience, and assistance. ElisabethF ( talk) 15:01, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 15:31, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for helping me make my first brand-spankin-new page <3
Iamjessklein (
talk)
17:51, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
-- Bsherr ( talk) 00:51, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
I haven't done a whole lot of editing since August and I just noticed my user scripts are no longer loading. Was there a change to the software/interface in the intervening period? If so, would you happen to know how I might restore the functionality of my user scripts?
I don't really know who else to ask; I figured you might know since you informed me (technically,
WT:MED) a while back about changes to the software that necessitated changing lines of code like importScript('PAGENAME.js');
to mw.loader.load('//en.wikipedia.org/?title=PAGENAME.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');
in one's common.js page.
Seppi333 (
Insert 2¢)
05:41, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you again for your comments and feedback on the WP:MED talk page. Today I have noticed that the PMID tool is not working all the time. Twice in a row, using different PMIDs on different WP articles, I have got a warning "We couldn't make a citation for you. You can create one manually using the "Manual" tab above." I tried a second time, got the same warning, and then I am able to add it with the DOI. Have you heard this feedback before? I have never noticed this problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Assisted_zona_hatching&type=revision&diff=868497805&oldid=866753080&diffmode=source Thanks again, JenOttawa ( talk) 15:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello,
I wanted to share a follow-up to an RfC you participated in from late 2016/early 2017. It was regarding making certain warning templates visible on mobile. The Readers web team has been working to improve how these templates appear on the mobile website. I shared an announcement with communities today that covers what is happening. If you have any interest, I encourage your support in giving feedback on the project page or helping update templates of this nature with some of our recommendations.
Thank you, CKoerner (WMF) ( talk) 20:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, WhatamIdoing. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to invite editors who participated in the deletion discussion to give their input at article talk. There was considerable interest in cleaning up this article in one way or another, but there have been few responses to my proposal to trim the passenger lists. Alternative proposals are certainly welcome as well; I'm hoping that we can build some sort of consensus for the scope and direction of the article moving forward. Thanks – dlthewave ☎ 22:01, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,
I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.
For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."
Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)
Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas.
This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.
-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 13:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
I am an inactive editor and I came across User:Skeptic from Britain because of a series of deletions focusing on LCHF dieting. It is pretty clear based on his/her edit history that (s)he considers LCHF to be quackery, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary (this spreadsheet lists 70+ studies on the efficacy of LCHF diets, it's NOT pseudoscience). In particular, see this controlled study which demonstrated dramatic improvements in T2D management, including elimination of medications and blood glucose correction to non-diabetic ranges, using a ketogenic (low carb) dieting strategy. It is one of the only lifestyle approaches clinically shown to have such a dramatic effect, and it has received reliable mainstream press coverage ( [6], [7], [8]). Perhaps some neutral editors should get involved because it's not at all clear that Skeptic can be objective in this domain. ATren ( talk) 19:26, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Last month Jytdog put out a request on WT:MED to resolve a request I had made to revert an incorrect edit. You helpfully weighed in, but nothing happened. As you know, Jytdog is now gone. Would you be able to take up the mantle? If the original merge can be reverted (i.e. if the multisystem proteinopathy content can be pulled back out into its own page rather than being merged into "hereditary inclusion body myopathy" -- a merge that I argue should not have been made) I can make any additional edits to the MSP page that are deemed appropriate. Thanks. 192.55.208.10 ( talk) 16:39, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
You might consider making a template for the content you added in [9]. -- Izno ( talk) 21:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
What are u doing?
How did u come up with the name.
ImmortalWizard
(chat)
21:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
If he is DM Posner on Google Scholar, I don't think he passes WP:PROF. A quick google search shows coverage limited to a) obits and b) press releases. So at this point I concur with the deletion of the draft. If there is more substantial coverage, the article's creator should find it and add it to this not particularly impressive stub. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lisa Littman is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Littman until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Safrolic ( talk) 09:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Please do not keep restoring your changes to WP:BRD. Go to talk if you want to discuss. SarahSV (talk) 17:32, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
This is all true, but does it help to say it out loud? Beware of beans NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 11:25, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello WhatamIdoing,
I've just posted a question on the HelpDesk that I believe you are qualified to answer. Do you care to take a look at it?
Best regards, Coel Jo ( talk) 22:13, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi there Waid, I hope all is well with you. I've a sourcing question. Our WP:MEDRS guideline says:
I left everything Monsanto a few years back when it seemed to be a waste of my time but have recently returned to attempt a few edits. Glyphosate has not been reviewed since 2000 and I'm trying to add something more recent. I used this edit which was rejected with this edit summary: [ [10]] Because BMJ calls it an essay I don't know how to translate that to anything that we list in our guidelines for med stuff. What do you think, would this be a narrative review? Gandydancer ( talk) 15:47, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Just in case you don't know this clip - Homeopathic A&E. Narky Blert ( talk) 20:43, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
For your empathy and helpfulness on WP:ELN last week. Schazjmd ( talk) 00:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC) |
Thank
you. What a nice way to start my day. :-)
WhatamIdoing (
talk)
14:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your advice. I appreciate it! NPTruth ( talk) 19:13, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Template:Partisan sources has been nominated for merging with Template:Third-party. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. wumbolo ^^^ 23:15, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
To all interested parties: Now that it has a proper shortcut, the current events noticeboard has now officially opened for discussion!
WP:CEN came about as an idea I explored through a request for comment that closed last March. Recent research has re-opened the debate on Wikipedia's role in a changing faster-paced internet. Questions of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:Recentism are still floating around. That being said, there are still plenty of articles to write and hopefully this noticeboard can positively contribute to that critical process.
Thank you for your participation in the RFC, and I hope to see you at WP:CEN soon! – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 19:10, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) at 19:34, 29 June 2019 (UTC) on behalf of DannyS712 ( talk)
Hi,
You added these to the notability guidelines several years ago. Were these additions approved by the community? I've looked through the talk pages archives of the guidelines and WP:VPP and haven't yet found any evidence of that. Is there something I'm missing? The reason I ask is that WP:NOTINHERITED (an essay that predates INHERITORG and INHERITWEB) now makes it clear that it is not a guideline or policy, which could be taken as a contradiction to the notion that the concept is (right?) (In fact, I think I actually described it as a de-facto guideline, but was contradicted). Adam9007 ( talk) 17:38, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
;-)
Usually, for me, major changes like that are either tightly associated with a specific discussion, or they were preceded by multiple discussions, spread over many months and sometimes over multiple pages. For example, I merged
WP:3PARTY and
WP:INDY a while ago, and I think that more than a year elapsed between announcing my intention to do so and actually doing it (and I was talking about the possibility on other pages well before that, including WT:V). It is therefore not always easy to find which discussion(s) precipitated an edit, even when those discussions happened.It's even okay if those sources are talking about it precisely because George Washington slept thereLol, a while ago, I did an analysis of NOTINHERITED and its supposed connexion to A7, and that's basically the point I was trying to make with regards to claims of significance. I made those edits to ATA because, in my experience, NOTINHERITED is notoriously misapplied to speedy deletion and its lower standard of significance/importance too (I thought it needed to be made clear that there's not only a potential for sources, the misapplication ignores WP:ATD too). I've received an awful lot of cack over it, and I think it would be highly ironic (considering that there are a lot of editors who've had a go at me over it) if the 'Notability is not inherited' concept turned out to not be a community-approved guideline after all (much like how WP:Office Actions, despite being labelled as policy since 2006, recently turned out to not be a community-approved policy at all). That's why I really do need to know if there's proper consensus for it (speaking of which, many editors have either implied or outright claimed consensus for NOTINHERITED's application to A7 and significance/importance, but no-one's been able to provide any links... ). Adam9007 ( talk) 20:23, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I would be grateful for some of your involvement regarding a long-running dispute on the article Alexander the Great in the Quran.
The version of the lede that I (and at least Furius too) support is this one. However, this version is being repeatedly reverted for this. The reverters while completely ignoring WP:EXCEPTIONAL, WP:NPOV and WP:ASSERT concerns, only argue against using Muslim scholars as reliable sources for the representation of Muslim opinions.
Can you kindly weigh-in on whether widely famous and respected Muslim scholars such as Syed Abul Ala Maududi and Mufti Muhammad Shafi with widely read and accepted published works should be considered reliable enough for their understanding of the views of their own demography? For, maybe a little too detailed, discussion regarding this, see Talk:Alexander the Great in the Quran#Opinions of "tiny minorities".
Additionally, given the overall POV and weight issues obvious in the lede proposed by the reverters, kindly also give an opinion regarding the overall lede.
-- AhmadF.Cheema ( talk) 03:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Your comment of 16 July sums up the confusion. Does anything now happen in coming to a consensus or is the matter left indefinitely on the back burner? Taking for example the stub page for a rarely used flag stop (comprising only a pole for infrastructure on a line having 3 trains per week each way), what criteria would administrators consider in determining if the page should be eliminated? Is it best just to ignore these stubs, and reluctantly accept that they poorly inform or sometimes blatantly misinform readers? DMBanks1 ( talk) 17:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
:-)
"Welcome to Wikipedia. Sometimes article titles are confusing, so I just wanted to make sure that you knew that the Chronic Lyme disease article isn't the same subject as Post-treatment Lyme disease syndrome. The "CLD" article's subject is people who never had a verifiable Lyme infection and probably have fibromyalgia. PTLDS is for people with ongoing problems after treatment for a proven Lyme infection. I know it's confusing, but it's likely that your contribution would have been more appropriate for PTLDS than for the page it ended up on. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)"
;-)
WhatamIdoing (
talk)
04:08, 21 August 2019 (UTC)You responded to a question I had about the main template (specifically, I didn't know where to ask it) but you said what I should do about the article. Here is the discussion. If you don't know what to do about the article, I understand, and I'm no expert on how to write about oil, but I somehow ended up with the responsibility and I've done too much work to simply delete my additions. A summary might be nice if I can figure out how, but all the coverage I used as sources was short-term rather than something I can use to summarize an entire year, and it was mostly what appeared to be major events. Looking back, some may not have been that major, but the reasons behind price changes are important and need to go somewhere. For eight years no one told me I was doing anything wrong, after someone said I was doing a good job. Few people made other contributions.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:30, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi there Waid, I need a little help with obtaining a paper that is listed in the recent Signpost. I tried to find help from an editor that I know is sympathetic to women's issues, but so far have not found any help...so I turn to you because I know you will not fail me (and I just love you for that ). Rather than explain it allover again I will copy my note at Drmies page:
Suggestions? Gandydancer ( talk) 17:32, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
prefix:Talk:Breastfeeding
to the end of whatever you typed in the search box, and it'll search only pages whose titles begin with Talk:Breastfeeding (including all of the Talk:Breastfeeding/Archive pages).
WhatamIdoing (
talk)
18:49, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
...[Blogs are] culturally saturated spaces that can reinscribe cultural privilege through both implicit and explicit narratives...
Hello WhatamIdoing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kugihot ( talk • contribs) 19:42, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
You said on Iridescent's talk that the tech people have no interest in making efn viable for WikiVisual or whatever it's called. They love the ' impenetrable mass created by that tool, whatever it's called, the one that drops cite books into body text like pimples on a teenager's face. So my question is..........why? Are they trying to say that 1) in the future only WikiVisual will be available, and 2) WikiVisual will completely hide the ugly-assed, massively confusing details from the tender gaze of editors? Thank you for your reply ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 03:16, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello,
I posted about my academic research a while ago and I thank you very much for taking the time to reply to me.
I am very new at Wikipedia and i am struggling to find my way and to understand the dynamics.
I was hoping to be able to discuss with you the terms of agreement you sent me so I could understand them more. Also hopefully be able to share with you a bit more about my research and why it is important if it possible to do live interviews with people who take part in Wikipedia (no matter the role/position).
I would gladly share the main topic and my methodology since you mentioned that in your kind reply.
Thank you very much again — Preceding unsigned comment added by MayssamD ( talk • contribs) 15:43, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello and thank you again for your reply. My research requires data from live interviews of people who volunteer their time. I need to record, transcribe, code and analyze them. My aim is to try to post my research somewhere and hopefully see who is willing to give me 20 min for a short interview. Also, I am unable to understand why I am taken to the "conflict of interest" page. I would kindly ask you to maybe clarify for me if I am doing something wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MayssamD ( talk • contribs) 16:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
I totally understand and I am already looking at the links you sent me and I thank you for that. Yet I, please, must still ask. Is there a place where I can post about my research and see if anyone is interested in a short interview? Especially that I still have to do it as my main methodology anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MayssamD ( talk • contribs) 23:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply and thank you for all your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MayssamD ( talk • contribs) 15:13, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
... to resist posting this, and I apologize for my lack of self-control. But I have to ask: (and I know it was long ago) .. still: Is
this edit, in particular We need well-writing articles...
deliberate wording? It really made me smile. And I apologize, I'm honestly not trying to "make fun", but it's just too good to pass up.
— Ched (
talk)
12:39, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
It's bad enough having to engage with editors who are ignorant of how things work here. But when you side with them advocating content rooted in your own questionable pronouncements about the real world ("the tiny fraction of UK folks that practice circumcision as a religions thing") that just about takes the bloody biscuit - especially when it's delivered with a swipe about my supposed "personal beliefs". We need to stick to content that can be verified, especially in tricky areas like circumcision. Alexbrn ( talk) 20:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Hey there. I notice you edited in a discussion I closed at ANI. I would ask that you revert this - discussions should not be added to after closing and I would ask you to consider self-reverting. You could of course, and I would not try to reinstate it, undo my close and then add your comment. Or you could add your comment beneath the close, or you could continue the conversation on Blue Raspberry's user talk page. However, adding to a closed discussion creates confusion and effectively uncloses the discussion anyway in which case it should be unclosed for everyone. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 05:04, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
For protecting Wikipedia's universality! Magioladitis ( talk) 22:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC) |
I am not into barnstarts - but you need one for your judicious negotiating the conversation at Medicine project - keep it up ! JarrahTree 03:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello, WhatamIdoing.
I saw your comment over at VPM. |
Hello, WhatamIdoing. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate the info you’ve provided me, on the discussion about external links. And for being a rebuttal to people treating Wikipedia like a delicate flower rather than a platform to educate and inform. Tmbirkhead ( talk) 22:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC) Tmbirkhead ( talk) 22:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
THANK YOU for your help!
Odd Höglund (SLU) (
talk)
13:37, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
The Happy Holiday Barnstar | ||
How about combining a Barnstar with a Christmas Card? That is why this message is appearing on your talk page. Simultaneously and at the same time, this barnstar is conferred upon you because during this past year you worked and contributed your time to improve the encyclopedia. You also have received far too little recognition for your contributions. In addition, this is a small attempt at spreading holiday cheer. I've appreciated all the things that you have done for me. The Best of Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ and Merry Christmas 01:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC) |
I did a little improvement. All disorders and symptoms related to urination are defined differently as far as I know. I wasn't interested in the discussion on the med talk page for my own reasons but there seems to be a general lack of understanding of incontinence and urinary disorders. I expect that understanding will begin to improve as more editors enter their 50's. Experiencing all things urological will generate a keen interest in these topics. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ and Merry Christmas 23:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 15:36, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2018! | |
Hello WhatamIdoing, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this
seasonal occasion. Spread the
WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas and a
Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2018. Spread the love by adding {{ subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
Happy New Year! Best wishes for 2018, — Paleo Neonate – 22:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC) |
While you are completely in the right to alert other related P&G talk pages about the RFC at NCORP, please be aware the message should be neutral per WP:CANVAS; some of your messages like the one to WT:V seem biased. -- Masem ( t) 06:40, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't understand this summary. [1] I not was contesting the IP's interest in the article. I was contesting the addition of what appear to be inappropriate Wikiproject banners to this and other articles by an IP who is not a member of the projects. If members of the projects in question think the articles are valid topics for their projects and want to take them on then that's up to them. That's why I linked to the articles from the projects. Meters ( talk) 05:37, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, thank you very much for the barnstar. I am still wrestling with the topic. - SusanLesch ( talk) 14:26, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
:-)
WhatamIdoing (
talk)
17:03, 21 March 2018 (UTC)I see that, for medical articles, Wikipedia is no longer primarily a collaboratively edited text & image encyclopaedia, but a platform for documentaries created by a private third party. Videos which Wikipedians have no ability to edit, nor our readers any ability to verify facts against sources. This is not Wikipedia. -- Colin° Talk 11:05, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Here's another concern, WAID. While working to return to active medical editing, I have found myself spending excessive time on debacles like this to the extent that it is hard to get work done. When did we stop caring about our core content? What I have gone through on the talk page of DLB is ... not a good thing. Endlessly working through issues that are driven by off-en.wiki endeavors, while I am trying to do a much-needed major rewrite of a seriously outdated article. These videos are a big problem everywhere I see them, and they are a timesink, and our efforts at WP:MED need to somehow be redirected back to the big picture-- our content. This should not be an editor problem-- we should be able to delete them according to various policies and guidelines, without seeing edit warring from Doc James to keep in COI paid editor content. Every place I look, it seems that the project has lost its way-- a "way" established by Colin when he started MEDRS. Best, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
In the category of practical strategizing, I think that it would be good to make a list of all the problems, and then pick one that we want to solve (first). Here's a list that I've seen mentioned here so far:
Does that sound like a reasonably complete list of the problems? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 05:46, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, I very much like your list above. I knew there were still some rational level-headed people left on the project. In contrast I have received no end of personal attacks from Jtdog and Doc James. I have lost count of the number of times "bullshit" is mentioned, and there are some people who need to put a few coins in the swear jar and go sit on the naughty step for a while.
I am planning to start an essay to address the issue primary of long videos. As you say, some of these issues affect other media too. This can concentrate on areas where I hope there is a chance of progress, whereas the other concerns of content created by private foundations, of COI editing, proxy editing, paid editing, edit warring and bullying are ongoing and well known to many on Wikipedia who seem to be in no rush to do anything about it. The WP:MED deity-bully is a problem for others to recognise and solve.
I think the main emphasis should be that it is through text alone that Wikipedia is collaboratively edited. Text is also by far the primary means of delivering educational content. It is an encyclopaedia, after all, not a TV station or YouTube channel. It is only via text that we can provide in-text citations to sources. It is only through text that we can examine what changes each editor made. Text is the only content actually hosted on Wikipedia (with the exception of some non-free images, and whatever images have not yet been transferred to Commons). We only have editing and behavioural policies for text.
One big issue is that of watchlists. It is by watching articles (and examining the diffs of edits) that our content is cared for by long-term Wikipedians. This is simply not possible for AV media. The videos on Commons have a contribution history of one [2]. Therefore they are (likely to be) on only one person's watchlist. A person who edits Commons infrequently, and not since 22 Feb, and who may change jobs and retire his account. We then have videos that could be modified by anyone at any time and without anyone on Wikipedia being aware. Unless you sit through all 8 minutes of each one.
Another issue is that even if it was practical to edit the videos -- let's say that someone developed an open set of graphic design tools and a text-to-speech narration, with full source-materials uploaded. Commons is not a collaboratively edited project. It is just a file repository. See Commons: Overwriting existing files. Unless you are making the most minor and non-controversial change, Commons does not permit you to overwrite an existing file. You must fork and create a new file. This file in turn has exactly one watchlister and the person watchlisting the previous file is left dangling, as their content is no longer used. Of course, the Commons guideline is frequently ignored and anyone with nefarious reasons to edit a video would not announce their edit by replacing the article link to a different file.
Commons hates when Wikipedia content disputes spill over into Commons. So dealing with edit behaviour issues is complicated. Commons is not concerned with the pillars of Wikipedia such as neutrality, verifiability, etc.
The CC licence requires that when an editor creates a derivative work, they document what changes were made and which content is produce by whom. It also requires all editors are given equal billing in any credits. On Wikipedia this is done via the file history and diffs to show what each editor did. For media, we have no diff. Unless editors wish to fill the file-description page with tedious "At 3m20s I changed the words "patient" to "person with epilepsy"" notes... not going to happen.
These are the problems. And I'm sure there are more. My mind boggles that anyone considered this suitable for Wikipedia. -- Colin° Talk 08:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
I have created Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not YouTube. It is a start. Constructive supporting edits are most welcome. Anyone with opposing views is of course welcome to create their own article, or rant on the talk page. -- Colin° Talk 12:16, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
I am thinking of taking another approach. It has struck me that the entire focus of WP:MED, relative to what it was in the days when we got MEDMOS and MEDRS up to guideline status, has switched from wikipedia-internal content and article improvement drives, to wikipedia-external applications, collaborations and approaches.
Now, whether one stands on the side of either set of efforts or foci having been helpful or harmful, it is clear we aren't talking to each other or having any sense of what the others are up to, or so disturbed about. Specifically, I see no recognition from the proponents of external efforts of how much the proponents of internal article content creation and improvement drives believe that the medicine project, and medical content, have been damaged by the externally oriented efforts. They probably say the same about those who think like me (although most of us gave up and left). I know that most of them (not all, and this project should deal with its abusive members) are undeniably acting in good faith and mystified about why some others are so upset about guidelines we helped create being undermined, along with quality content we helped build. Doc James specifically said on my talk page that he has no interest in building what I consider to be featured content, [3] and that got me thinking. I'd rather work 1,000 days to build 1 article like nothing else that can be found on the internet; he'd rather work on 1,000 articles in 1 day-- broadly sums up very different priorities.
So, if I were to build the history of the medicine project, and explain it from that angle, would that be helpful, or just create further division? See my sandbox: how on earth did we get here from there? Can this approach be used to build understanding and bring some WP:MED project focus back on internal collaborations to build quality content? This is not it, and I'll take it to FAR if we get through the video business. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:29, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your kindness explaining this to me! You're right, I want to know. I thought they improved the presentation, oops ... I have removed the blank lines of my messages here.
Best regards. -- BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 19:01, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
(here
phabricator/T169741.)
Hi WhatamIdoing, and thanks for your interest in the matter. Your say:
- "The system should stop dumping new editors into the visual mode."
- "Any editor who wants two tabs can go to https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/Spécial:Préférences#mw-prefsection-editing and choose "Show me both editor tabs"."
- " Perhaps this information could be posted to the village pump"
- "or even added to https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/Modèle:Bienvenue ?"
- "...disregard a community recommendation if they believe the result will be worse for the target audience."
What happened when I tried to use that VE is a long (and depressing) story. The summary of it is that try as may, I did not see anything transmitted from the edit boxes to the actual page. So to me there is nothing "visual" to it, this is specialist language and newcomers can't be expected to know what it means. I've had to put a sticker on my comp' that says "NO "Visual Ed"" because my natural tendency is to trust you guys and I must remind myself that that "visual" is not what it says it is. You just can't expect newcomers to understand what each corresponds to. That's why you are 100% right when you say 'stop dumping new editors into the visual mode', and I.T. being unpredictable for many of us it's also right to give a tab on the same screen to get back to the useful editor when the other one accidentally kicks in.
Thanks much for your attention. I hope it'll get sorted soon. Best wishes for the day :) Pueblopassingby ( talk) 12:56, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps you would be able to recruit someone to sort the mess at Frontotemporal dementia? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
barnstar นี้ได้รับรางวัลเพื่อรับรู้ถึงผลงานที่ดีโดยเฉพาะอย่างยิ่งกับวิกิพีเดียเพื่อให้คนรู้ว่าการทำงานหนักของพวกเขาจะเห็นและชื่นชม Lovelynam27 ( talk) 08:21, 25 April 2018 (UTC) |
The 2017 Cure Award | |
In 2017 you were one of the top ~250 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs. |
Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 02:54, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi WhatamIdoing, so the article I wrote was just about to appear on the DYK section of the front page (exciting!), but it got pulled back just before it went up as Gatoclass wanted some clarification of the hook. I believe I have addressed his concerns, both in the article [4], and in the DYK nomination page [5] for the article, though if you think you can improve on my explanation of the term 'clinical event' in the article, feel free to improve on it, as it would be most helpful. Kind regards Calaka ( talk) 00:44, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Non-science at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 00:16, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Non-science at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! SteveMcCluskey ( talk) 15:41, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
You are a remarkable editor in many ways. You would be a good administrator in my opinion, and appear to be well qualified! You personify an administrator without tools, and have gained my support; already! |
I was flabbergasted, like never before, to learn that you are not an admin already. If it's not personal, would you mind telling your stalkers and me why you are not? I think you would easily succeed an RfA, and I'm certain you'd be an excellent administrator; just as you are a colleague extraordinaire! Sincerely.-- John Cline ( talk) 09:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
75.145.160.153 ( talk) 18:28, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Good point, on |+ Examples
. I think I would have done this in prose, though: "Examples are provided in the tables below", instead of redundantly using the same caption over and over. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
00:28, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Don't know if you're still watching that essay, but there's some new desultory talk on its talk page about promoting it to a guideline. I just made this edit to address some of the things you and I raised back in 2012 the last time this came up. You'll recall that the effort to promote it died out back then, so there's not been any real need to address these issues since it's only been an essay since then. Frankly, I don't think that there's going to be any real effort to promote it this time, either, but just in case... There's other issues which also need to be addressed (conflicts between scholarly and popular sources being the main one), but this edit hits the worst ones, I think. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 17:42, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
My point is that you are asserting that Esterel is an old, obscure language suitable only for simple things like traffic light controllers. That is what Gerard Berry would find humorous.
In fact, Esterel is a modern, actively used family of languages used for incredibly complex things such as the 120 million lines of code that run an Airbus 380.
Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbelknap ( talk • contribs) 23:31, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Five years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
... and six -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Re Special:Diff/852742770, not sure if you noticed, but that discussion was closed. Did you want to move your comment to the active discussion at Wikipedia talk:Interface administrators? I said the same thing there, so your reply as worded will still make sense. — MusikAnimal talk 02:15, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Non-science at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset ( talk) 17:24, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback over at WP:Medicine. I'm not sure if you saw my reply there, but I removed the link to the search results and replaced it with the authority control template. Do you have another minute to review my proposed draft to see if it's in a publishable state?-- FacultiesIntact ( talk) 00:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello WAID,
It's been a while. I miss our conversations.
RE: "The source's audience must also be considered"?
I dislike the wording and tried to improve it. User:TonyBallioni quickly disagreed (I am guessing thinking of this discussion).
To my surprise, WikiBlame blames you for these words. Your edit was to make a quite differently structured paragraph. I note that you introduced the tricky semicolon, which I find confuses unfamiliar readers.
Can you comment on my thoughts, that passive "must"s are a poor way to write guidance? It reminds me of an old professor espousing opinions on how things must be done, disconnected to what people doing things are actually doing. When the doers meet the rule espouser, they communicate inefficiently, because the passive "must" doesn't speak to modifying a behaviour. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:04, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
;-)
)
WhatamIdoing (
talk)
05:01, 7 September 2018 (UTC)Hello! Your submission of Non-science at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Boud ( talk) 01:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi! Friendly reminder to check out my updated edit on the JDRF talk page! I pinged you, but am uncertain if you saw it. Your suggestions were greatly appreciated and I included them in the update. Let me know if you have any further thoughts, or if you find it is good as is, feel free to put it up! Thanks again for your time, patience, and assistance. ElisabethF ( talk) 15:01, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 15:31, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for helping me make my first brand-spankin-new page <3
Iamjessklein (
talk)
17:51, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
-- Bsherr ( talk) 00:51, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
I haven't done a whole lot of editing since August and I just noticed my user scripts are no longer loading. Was there a change to the software/interface in the intervening period? If so, would you happen to know how I might restore the functionality of my user scripts?
I don't really know who else to ask; I figured you might know since you informed me (technically,
WT:MED) a while back about changes to the software that necessitated changing lines of code like importScript('PAGENAME.js');
to mw.loader.load('//en.wikipedia.org/?title=PAGENAME.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');
in one's common.js page.
Seppi333 (
Insert 2¢)
05:41, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you again for your comments and feedback on the WP:MED talk page. Today I have noticed that the PMID tool is not working all the time. Twice in a row, using different PMIDs on different WP articles, I have got a warning "We couldn't make a citation for you. You can create one manually using the "Manual" tab above." I tried a second time, got the same warning, and then I am able to add it with the DOI. Have you heard this feedback before? I have never noticed this problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Assisted_zona_hatching&type=revision&diff=868497805&oldid=866753080&diffmode=source Thanks again, JenOttawa ( talk) 15:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello,
I wanted to share a follow-up to an RfC you participated in from late 2016/early 2017. It was regarding making certain warning templates visible on mobile. The Readers web team has been working to improve how these templates appear on the mobile website. I shared an announcement with communities today that covers what is happening. If you have any interest, I encourage your support in giving feedback on the project page or helping update templates of this nature with some of our recommendations.
Thank you, CKoerner (WMF) ( talk) 20:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, WhatamIdoing. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to invite editors who participated in the deletion discussion to give their input at article talk. There was considerable interest in cleaning up this article in one way or another, but there have been few responses to my proposal to trim the passenger lists. Alternative proposals are certainly welcome as well; I'm hoping that we can build some sort of consensus for the scope and direction of the article moving forward. Thanks – dlthewave ☎ 22:01, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,
I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.
For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."
Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)
Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas.
This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.
-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 13:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
I am an inactive editor and I came across User:Skeptic from Britain because of a series of deletions focusing on LCHF dieting. It is pretty clear based on his/her edit history that (s)he considers LCHF to be quackery, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary (this spreadsheet lists 70+ studies on the efficacy of LCHF diets, it's NOT pseudoscience). In particular, see this controlled study which demonstrated dramatic improvements in T2D management, including elimination of medications and blood glucose correction to non-diabetic ranges, using a ketogenic (low carb) dieting strategy. It is one of the only lifestyle approaches clinically shown to have such a dramatic effect, and it has received reliable mainstream press coverage ( [6], [7], [8]). Perhaps some neutral editors should get involved because it's not at all clear that Skeptic can be objective in this domain. ATren ( talk) 19:26, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Last month Jytdog put out a request on WT:MED to resolve a request I had made to revert an incorrect edit. You helpfully weighed in, but nothing happened. As you know, Jytdog is now gone. Would you be able to take up the mantle? If the original merge can be reverted (i.e. if the multisystem proteinopathy content can be pulled back out into its own page rather than being merged into "hereditary inclusion body myopathy" -- a merge that I argue should not have been made) I can make any additional edits to the MSP page that are deemed appropriate. Thanks. 192.55.208.10 ( talk) 16:39, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
You might consider making a template for the content you added in [9]. -- Izno ( talk) 21:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
What are u doing?
How did u come up with the name.
ImmortalWizard
(chat)
21:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
If he is DM Posner on Google Scholar, I don't think he passes WP:PROF. A quick google search shows coverage limited to a) obits and b) press releases. So at this point I concur with the deletion of the draft. If there is more substantial coverage, the article's creator should find it and add it to this not particularly impressive stub. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lisa Littman is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Littman until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Safrolic ( talk) 09:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Please do not keep restoring your changes to WP:BRD. Go to talk if you want to discuss. SarahSV (talk) 17:32, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
This is all true, but does it help to say it out loud? Beware of beans NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 11:25, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello WhatamIdoing,
I've just posted a question on the HelpDesk that I believe you are qualified to answer. Do you care to take a look at it?
Best regards, Coel Jo ( talk) 22:13, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi there Waid, I hope all is well with you. I've a sourcing question. Our WP:MEDRS guideline says:
I left everything Monsanto a few years back when it seemed to be a waste of my time but have recently returned to attempt a few edits. Glyphosate has not been reviewed since 2000 and I'm trying to add something more recent. I used this edit which was rejected with this edit summary: [ [10]] Because BMJ calls it an essay I don't know how to translate that to anything that we list in our guidelines for med stuff. What do you think, would this be a narrative review? Gandydancer ( talk) 15:47, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Just in case you don't know this clip - Homeopathic A&E. Narky Blert ( talk) 20:43, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
For your empathy and helpfulness on WP:ELN last week. Schazjmd ( talk) 00:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC) |
Thank
you. What a nice way to start my day. :-)
WhatamIdoing (
talk)
14:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your advice. I appreciate it! NPTruth ( talk) 19:13, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Template:Partisan sources has been nominated for merging with Template:Third-party. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. wumbolo ^^^ 23:15, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
To all interested parties: Now that it has a proper shortcut, the current events noticeboard has now officially opened for discussion!
WP:CEN came about as an idea I explored through a request for comment that closed last March. Recent research has re-opened the debate on Wikipedia's role in a changing faster-paced internet. Questions of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:Recentism are still floating around. That being said, there are still plenty of articles to write and hopefully this noticeboard can positively contribute to that critical process.
Thank you for your participation in the RFC, and I hope to see you at WP:CEN soon! – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 19:10, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) at 19:34, 29 June 2019 (UTC) on behalf of DannyS712 ( talk)
Hi,
You added these to the notability guidelines several years ago. Were these additions approved by the community? I've looked through the talk pages archives of the guidelines and WP:VPP and haven't yet found any evidence of that. Is there something I'm missing? The reason I ask is that WP:NOTINHERITED (an essay that predates INHERITORG and INHERITWEB) now makes it clear that it is not a guideline or policy, which could be taken as a contradiction to the notion that the concept is (right?) (In fact, I think I actually described it as a de-facto guideline, but was contradicted). Adam9007 ( talk) 17:38, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
;-)
Usually, for me, major changes like that are either tightly associated with a specific discussion, or they were preceded by multiple discussions, spread over many months and sometimes over multiple pages. For example, I merged
WP:3PARTY and
WP:INDY a while ago, and I think that more than a year elapsed between announcing my intention to do so and actually doing it (and I was talking about the possibility on other pages well before that, including WT:V). It is therefore not always easy to find which discussion(s) precipitated an edit, even when those discussions happened.It's even okay if those sources are talking about it precisely because George Washington slept thereLol, a while ago, I did an analysis of NOTINHERITED and its supposed connexion to A7, and that's basically the point I was trying to make with regards to claims of significance. I made those edits to ATA because, in my experience, NOTINHERITED is notoriously misapplied to speedy deletion and its lower standard of significance/importance too (I thought it needed to be made clear that there's not only a potential for sources, the misapplication ignores WP:ATD too). I've received an awful lot of cack over it, and I think it would be highly ironic (considering that there are a lot of editors who've had a go at me over it) if the 'Notability is not inherited' concept turned out to not be a community-approved guideline after all (much like how WP:Office Actions, despite being labelled as policy since 2006, recently turned out to not be a community-approved policy at all). That's why I really do need to know if there's proper consensus for it (speaking of which, many editors have either implied or outright claimed consensus for NOTINHERITED's application to A7 and significance/importance, but no-one's been able to provide any links... ). Adam9007 ( talk) 20:23, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I would be grateful for some of your involvement regarding a long-running dispute on the article Alexander the Great in the Quran.
The version of the lede that I (and at least Furius too) support is this one. However, this version is being repeatedly reverted for this. The reverters while completely ignoring WP:EXCEPTIONAL, WP:NPOV and WP:ASSERT concerns, only argue against using Muslim scholars as reliable sources for the representation of Muslim opinions.
Can you kindly weigh-in on whether widely famous and respected Muslim scholars such as Syed Abul Ala Maududi and Mufti Muhammad Shafi with widely read and accepted published works should be considered reliable enough for their understanding of the views of their own demography? For, maybe a little too detailed, discussion regarding this, see Talk:Alexander the Great in the Quran#Opinions of "tiny minorities".
Additionally, given the overall POV and weight issues obvious in the lede proposed by the reverters, kindly also give an opinion regarding the overall lede.
-- AhmadF.Cheema ( talk) 03:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Your comment of 16 July sums up the confusion. Does anything now happen in coming to a consensus or is the matter left indefinitely on the back burner? Taking for example the stub page for a rarely used flag stop (comprising only a pole for infrastructure on a line having 3 trains per week each way), what criteria would administrators consider in determining if the page should be eliminated? Is it best just to ignore these stubs, and reluctantly accept that they poorly inform or sometimes blatantly misinform readers? DMBanks1 ( talk) 17:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
:-)
"Welcome to Wikipedia. Sometimes article titles are confusing, so I just wanted to make sure that you knew that the Chronic Lyme disease article isn't the same subject as Post-treatment Lyme disease syndrome. The "CLD" article's subject is people who never had a verifiable Lyme infection and probably have fibromyalgia. PTLDS is for people with ongoing problems after treatment for a proven Lyme infection. I know it's confusing, but it's likely that your contribution would have been more appropriate for PTLDS than for the page it ended up on. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)"
;-)
WhatamIdoing (
talk)
04:08, 21 August 2019 (UTC)You responded to a question I had about the main template (specifically, I didn't know where to ask it) but you said what I should do about the article. Here is the discussion. If you don't know what to do about the article, I understand, and I'm no expert on how to write about oil, but I somehow ended up with the responsibility and I've done too much work to simply delete my additions. A summary might be nice if I can figure out how, but all the coverage I used as sources was short-term rather than something I can use to summarize an entire year, and it was mostly what appeared to be major events. Looking back, some may not have been that major, but the reasons behind price changes are important and need to go somewhere. For eight years no one told me I was doing anything wrong, after someone said I was doing a good job. Few people made other contributions.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:30, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi there Waid, I need a little help with obtaining a paper that is listed in the recent Signpost. I tried to find help from an editor that I know is sympathetic to women's issues, but so far have not found any help...so I turn to you because I know you will not fail me (and I just love you for that ). Rather than explain it allover again I will copy my note at Drmies page:
Suggestions? Gandydancer ( talk) 17:32, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
prefix:Talk:Breastfeeding
to the end of whatever you typed in the search box, and it'll search only pages whose titles begin with Talk:Breastfeeding (including all of the Talk:Breastfeeding/Archive pages).
WhatamIdoing (
talk)
18:49, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
...[Blogs are] culturally saturated spaces that can reinscribe cultural privilege through both implicit and explicit narratives...
Hello WhatamIdoing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kugihot ( talk • contribs) 19:42, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
You said on Iridescent's talk that the tech people have no interest in making efn viable for WikiVisual or whatever it's called. They love the ' impenetrable mass created by that tool, whatever it's called, the one that drops cite books into body text like pimples on a teenager's face. So my question is..........why? Are they trying to say that 1) in the future only WikiVisual will be available, and 2) WikiVisual will completely hide the ugly-assed, massively confusing details from the tender gaze of editors? Thank you for your reply ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 03:16, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello,
I posted about my academic research a while ago and I thank you very much for taking the time to reply to me.
I am very new at Wikipedia and i am struggling to find my way and to understand the dynamics.
I was hoping to be able to discuss with you the terms of agreement you sent me so I could understand them more. Also hopefully be able to share with you a bit more about my research and why it is important if it possible to do live interviews with people who take part in Wikipedia (no matter the role/position).
I would gladly share the main topic and my methodology since you mentioned that in your kind reply.
Thank you very much again — Preceding unsigned comment added by MayssamD ( talk • contribs) 15:43, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello and thank you again for your reply. My research requires data from live interviews of people who volunteer their time. I need to record, transcribe, code and analyze them. My aim is to try to post my research somewhere and hopefully see who is willing to give me 20 min for a short interview. Also, I am unable to understand why I am taken to the "conflict of interest" page. I would kindly ask you to maybe clarify for me if I am doing something wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MayssamD ( talk • contribs) 16:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
I totally understand and I am already looking at the links you sent me and I thank you for that. Yet I, please, must still ask. Is there a place where I can post about my research and see if anyone is interested in a short interview? Especially that I still have to do it as my main methodology anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MayssamD ( talk • contribs) 23:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply and thank you for all your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MayssamD ( talk • contribs) 15:13, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
... to resist posting this, and I apologize for my lack of self-control. But I have to ask: (and I know it was long ago) .. still: Is
this edit, in particular We need well-writing articles...
deliberate wording? It really made me smile. And I apologize, I'm honestly not trying to "make fun", but it's just too good to pass up.
— Ched (
talk)
12:39, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
It's bad enough having to engage with editors who are ignorant of how things work here. But when you side with them advocating content rooted in your own questionable pronouncements about the real world ("the tiny fraction of UK folks that practice circumcision as a religions thing") that just about takes the bloody biscuit - especially when it's delivered with a swipe about my supposed "personal beliefs". We need to stick to content that can be verified, especially in tricky areas like circumcision. Alexbrn ( talk) 20:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Hey there. I notice you edited in a discussion I closed at ANI. I would ask that you revert this - discussions should not be added to after closing and I would ask you to consider self-reverting. You could of course, and I would not try to reinstate it, undo my close and then add your comment. Or you could add your comment beneath the close, or you could continue the conversation on Blue Raspberry's user talk page. However, adding to a closed discussion creates confusion and effectively uncloses the discussion anyway in which case it should be unclosed for everyone. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 05:04, 25 October 2019 (UTC)