User talk:WhatamIdoing/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Precious anniversary

Three years ago ...

magic tools
... you were recipient no. 584 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

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

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

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

Four years now, - quoted, but still needed, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

thank you

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

In case you find interest

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

AfC

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

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

Got an email

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

It looks like a serious drama fest is underway on Noël Coward.

I'm thinking about the larger systemic problem of INFOBOX's scrupulously neutral approach: "neither required nor prohibited" or something. (*short pause*) Yes, that's the exact language; I added it back in 2011. I'm starting to think that this language is not as helpful as some alternatives might be. Partly as a result of this, we're pretty much getting the same couple of people having the same fight over and over. Do you think that, if it were put to a vote, that the community would specify a (slight) preference one way or the other, at least for certain kinds of articles (e.g., article longer than a stub/not FA/about a person/whatever)?

Alternatively, we could consider TBANning anyone who has appeared in infobox discussions more than, say, once a month. While I think that might raise the average civility of the comments, I don't think that would have the effect of preventing some valuable editors (mostly on the DISINFOBOX side) from burning out. I think it would just change the reason for losing them from "burned out in infobox battles" to "said meatball:GoodBye when banned from talking about infoboxes in articles that are important to them". I'd like to keep these editors and stop the drain on them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:05, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Poor guys same people again in the same problem. There needs to be some sort of solution here. I am going to look more into research about the boxes. Thus far many studies have been show on how people use the internet, but because they do not mention boxes per say thoses opposes to boxes tend ignore them. I am going to look for specific studies on this by different aspects of the boxes.. like - How the structure of Wikipedia articles influences user navigation and IADIS International , Volume: 2010 (2010). "Languages and Wikipedia: Cultural evolution increases structure (PDF Download Available)". Retrieved August 16, 2016.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link). We should also look at problems raised by those that dont like them ...for instance the huge amount of wikicode of an infobox at the top of a page "may" discourages editing.....could this not be solve by the infoboxe being at the bottom and simply trascluded to the top. I think before any community wide RfC we should have some data to present for each side and have proposed solutions for problems like wikicode. Will get back to you on this in a bit. -- Moxy (talk) 15:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Dame ...i see things got blow out of proportion anyways Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Cassianto purging infoboxes and the information they contain and telling people to "fuck off" . -- Moxy (talk) 18:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Have you followed any of this? I saw that the ANI discussion went nowhere fast, but I lost the thread afterwards. WhatamIdoing (talk) 12:36, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Went down hill fast see Jimbo Wales' talk page.....then we now have User:Cassianto to be topic ban. Just as you stated...they are trying to burn him out. To bad hes a good writer - just bad interaction skills.--Moxy (talk) 21:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I wonder what the result of the latest ANI discussion will be.

What do you think about Gerda's idea of a two-comment limit per discussion? Do you think it could be usefully applied to all of the "regulars" in these discussions? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Intersex

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

Old talk page discussion

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

Thank you

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

You're welcome.

I've not see the ships/ports/etc. groups recently. I keep hoping that {{infobox ship}} will join the modern age (presumably Lua can handle the template's complex needs, and a bot could make the adjustments in the articles automatically), but I've had little contact with the groups working in that area.

That said, as a general rule of thumb (that certainly does not apply universally), bigger groups are more successful. A large group is more likely to have the resources it needs within the group (which reinforces group interaction) and more likely to keep operating over time (because the loss of a couple of editors is not the end of the group). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

you have compelling arguments about the social nature, and the size thing, I suppose I am quite old fashioned in the hope that the whole range of projects that get 'labelled' dead, moribund, and inactive are always 'resurrectable' in some way and allowed the chance to recover, I know that a few have tried to try to increase participation in some projects, and some projects have in fact been resurrected simply by new people coming along. However, I respect the way you have explained, thanks for that JarrahTree 07:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

If you run across anyone who is trying to revive a project, or have any ideas, then please point them to WP:REVIVE. I'm trying to collect all the advice on how to do that in one place, in the hope that more people will find it, apply it, and be successful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I think terminology and ascribing status to a project and participants is something that needs to be re-thought, will try to enunciate later JarrahTree 01:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC).

I'm happy to hear your thoughts whenever you have time. But I have been thinking about this, and I think that there's one valid reason to provide some sort of status to a WikiProject: The WikiProject banner templates encourage people to ask questions on the group's talk page. If you go to the project to ask a question, it's useful to know whether you should expect a reply. Very experienced editors like us can see the signs of an abandoned page just as easily as we could see the signs of a long-abandoned house, of course, but someone with only 10 or 100 edits will probably not and will be disappointed at the lack of reply. So I think that some sort of system to identify when you'll probably get a reply and when you'll probably not (because "nobody's home") would be helpful. (I don't care what that system is or what it's called.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 13:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

yeah I wish it was as simple as that. years ago people used to leave questions on talk pages of categories that were never answered (that wasnt even project space). I do not believe a project should be evaluated on whether someone turns up to answer a queation on a talk page of a project. Too simplistic. Anyways, it is not as if any one ed is going to solve the issues that surround project quietness and the varied responses to quietness, in the short term. JarrahTree 22:19, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

You are quite right. We should not really hope for a solution. I'm hopeful that we could come up with a slightly less confusing explanation of it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Your understanding of BRD policy

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

I have replied at WP:ANEW.

In the future (warning: pet peeve ahead), please avoid calling BRD a "policy". When inexperienced editors see someone with thousands of edits (like us) saying that something is a policy, then they think that it's mandatory. And that can lead to expectations that re-reversions should be met with blocks, and mistaking very typical content disputes for edit wars.

Good luck. If this isn't resolved in the next week, then you will probably need to either move on to a new article or start an RFC. (If you do an RFC, then you might consider the "pro/con" format. I recommend putting the question and date stamp before the table, rather than trying to get the bot to copy it. The bot's handling of complex formatting like tables is a bit brittle.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 09:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Impact

Impact

Thank you for your impact
in explaining gently why different readers should be offered the same information in different ways!

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

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

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

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

I've always wondered why that list is considered some sort of "hit list" rather than a "stay away" list. A sensible use for it would be to warn people against trying to add infoboxes to pages where they've previously been removed and discussed. So many articles on this wiki where an infobox would be welcomed, or at least ignored...

Well, if you're all going to drop by, then perhaps you can help me remember the name of the thing that I want. What's lenticular printing when it isn't exactly that? I'm thinking of a building with a zig-zag or corrugated surface, and you paint the "left" half of the ridges white and the "right" half of the ridges black, and then (if you're a properly enculturated English Wikipedian) have an argument over the One True™ color of the building, depending upon which angle you're viewing the building from.

And, yes, I'm aware that this would make a lovely metaphor for something about infoboxes, but I actually saw a photo of such a building in an art gallery this afternoon, so this is actually an innocent question in the hope that I'll be able to sleep tonight instead of racking my brains for the name. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

We all need to stay away from it and focus on what is important I think. I'd happily go the rest of the year without a single mention of an infobox. It's kind of a non issue, there's so many more important things on here! If Gerda could go a single week without mentioning one I'd be extremely surprised!♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:13, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Self-reporting

Hi, Regarding your remark about self-reporting [2], I was unable to find the policy. Could you help out and give me a link? --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

The best explanation is probably in WP:EGRS. (Something to keep in mind with that page is that all the subjects on the page are basically treated the same, even though an illuminating example or a useful part of the explanation may be elsewhere.)

Also, by "policy" I meant "what the community actually does in practice", not "what's currently written on a page with the policy template on it". WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:32, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Re: Candy bar

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

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

NPP & AfC

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

Intersex surgery

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

Hi Trankuility!

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

Check

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

The New York Times (New York) listed at Redirects for discussion

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

Old ad hom

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

I'm sorry; I have no memory of the conversation. From the thread there, I assume that I objected to your implicit claim that most, or at least a substantial minority of, sources that are reliable for statements about a medical question (such as psychiatry) would be written by people who are not (in some way) experts in the subject at hand. When the question is technical, non-experts are mostly non-reliable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

But there was no implicit claim of that - only if you equate 'expert' to mean 'with a medical degree'? In the mental health field there are practitioners and researchers with doctorates in clinical psychology, counselling psychology, sociology, cognitive neuroscience, evolutionary biology etc etc? This point of indisputable fact is never acknowledged by the doctors on Wikipedia. Moreover, you seemed to be trying to imply something by 'heavily involved in antipsychiatry', and made similar points after that, are you prepared to clarify what is it that you perceive? Eversync (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• I perceive that you know more than the typical editor about the 'who is an expert' fight that surrounds anti-psychiatry articles.
• I don't equate having a medical degree with being an expert. When the question is technical (e.g., rather than social or humanitarian), I think that a reasonable first approximation of "being an expert" looks like "being an established academic researcher". So if, for example, the question is whether people with a given diagnosis are more or less likely to engage in recreational drug use, 'the expert' is the person with a PhD in statistics and a series of publications on the subject, not the M.D. with an opinion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Merry Cristmas everybody!!!

"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.

Spread the cheer by adding {{Subst:Xmas4}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

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

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Good work on the article American Time Use Survey Devopam (talk) 11:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Those thanks belong to User:Joeykai, who expanded it yesterday. Since it's new, it could be sent to WP:DYK and run on the main page.

Joey, if you're looking for ways to even further expand the page, then I think there's room in that article for some of the interesting results (for example, it documents the amount of non-studying done by some college students[3][4], but a news search for "cool facts" would probably find something that appeals to you) and some of the practical uses by businesses (e.g., human resources issues or marketing and product planning) might be good areas for expansion. Every time they publish a new report, there are news stories on parenting and housework differences by gender[5][6], on sleep[7][8] and income differences[9][10]. And thanks for your work on this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:56, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

VE issue

Hey WAID

So when one edits a reference with VE it moves a bunch of stuff around, adds empty parameters, and adds quotes around the ref name such as is seen here[11].

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

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

Hi Doc James,

• It's not supposed to be re-arranging things – usually – but we've got a bug open, and they haven't figured out what's causing it. The effective priority on that bug is "this will be fixed absolutely immediately, just as soon as we figure out what to fix".
• Adding empty parameters is The Right Thing™ overall. The idea is that empty parameters encourage people to fill them in. So if the TemplateData marks |last= (or whatever) as a recommended field, then it will be added. However, that generally helpful behavior is not helpful in the example you've linked. A future version of TemplateData, which will give us a way to say that |last= is basically the same as |vauthors=, will solve that problem.
• The quotations are supposed to be used on ref names, even if there are no spaces. It (currently) works without the quotations, but it's a (very) tiny performance issue. So they aren't going to break/change that.

Thanks for this note. I'm always interested in hearing what people think and what problems they're running into. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks I prefer no quotes. A couple of accounts just got blocked for adding them including this one on Dec 13, 2016[12]

So unless their is clear consensus than VE should not be doing it either IMO. Or at least not automatically. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:10, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea why the bot was blocked, nor whether that block was warranted. But it would certainly depend upon the details: adding it while doing nothing else would violate WP:COSMETICBOT; cleaning up a trivial syntax error while editing that exact line anyway is always acceptable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:03, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Best wishes for the holidays...

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

Looking for help with an EDP

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

• (principally) m:User talk:StevenJ81#Ladino Wikipedia media policy
• m:Talk:List of Wikipedias having zero local media files#Ladino Wikipedia
• m:Talk:Non-free content#ladwiki upload config (phabricator was completed, and now we have admin-only upload)

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

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

I'm happy to help with this as a volunteer. I'm not very familiar with EDPs myself, so let's see if we can get some more help. User:LX certainly knows more than me about this issue. I believe that User:Masem and User:Hammersoft are very familiar with the enwiki policy, so they may be able to help you figure out which parts are essential and which are merely local process. (Also, are you sure that you want to do this at all? It's not a small amount of work.)

In terms of models, have you compared the enwiki policy against the Hebrew and Turkish policies, to see what might need to be adapted?

In terms of necessary process, how does the Ladino Wikipedia currently handle policy discussions? You'll want to make sure that editors have a good opportunity to comment and revise the document.

In terms of making it happen, I suggest that you build this in a sandbox. A sandbox is a great place for making progress, and if you don't boldly start somehow, then it may never happen. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:45, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back to me.

1. No, I'm not sure I really want to do it. I've been getting away with simply explaining that "we're using enwiki's EDP" for a while, and if I could keep doing that I would. But I'm not sure I'm going to be able to keep doing that. Why not just go for zero media files, then? I don't know, really. More than anything else, I guess, because I think everything we have is allowable under fair use, so I'd like to keep it around.
2. I do not speak Turkish at all, and my Hebrew is probably not good enough to handle the Hebrew policy. Based on a quick, Google-translated copy of each, I suspect the US version is the most restrictive of the three.
3. Community rarely exists as a real community; we have editors who periodically drop by. I usually post a notice to our Community Portal, in English (or English, Hebrew and Spanish), and if I hear no complaints in 7-14 days I assume there are no objections.
4. I will undoubtedly build this in English, then have someone translate (I hope). I want the absolute, positive, minimum policy document necessary. We have sysop-only upload and don't plan to change that.

Thanks to all for your help. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:05, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• Ok, first; are you fluent in Ladino? Second, whether something is fair use or not isn't a criterion under our EDP. If we allowed fair use, we'd have literally millions more images here. Our EDP deliberately restricts non-free media files to only those that are crucial to our purpose. Another thing to consider; some language wikis do not allow non-free media files at all. This can work. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:21, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not fluent in Ladino at all. But I'm around much more than the sysops who are. That's why I propose writing it in English, after which they will translate.
• And I meant "fair use" as a bit of a sloppy shortcut. Leaving out documentation, I think that we're actually following the enwiki rules reasonably well. We have 24 images that are low-res logos or national/municipal emblems and one movie poster. They are only used on the pages they illustrate. And we have no unused files. (We also have two photographs that one of my other sysops believes he took himself, but I haven't wanted to push them over to Commons yet.) See lad:Special:ListFiles. Since becoming a sysop a bit over a year ago, I've replaced some images that were removed from Commons. I haven't added anything else new, and uploading is now restricted to sysops.
• Finally, as long as I have some help, I'm willing to create a page at ladwiki to continue the discussion so that we don't keep lengthening WhatamIdoing's talk page. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:45, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Thank you, LX. That's really, really helpful. WRT non-free content, if we take this forward, we're certainly not going to do any more than is absolutely necessary; we just don't have the manpower to do so. Question for you (or anyone else watching): If I imported the enwiki policy and templates and used them as is, in English, ad interim, until someone can translate them, do you suppose the Foundation would find that a satisfactory short-term approach? Or will they say that on ladwiki, it's not valid until it's in Ladino? (FWIW, Creative Commons is not available in Ladino; when my language is set to Ladino, I get the Spanish version, which is the fallback in our language cascade.)

As for free content, I generally wasn't planning to host locally—and given the availability of Commons, there's generally no need to. In the case of the photographs, I had an impression, though not necessarily a strong one, that one of our users had taken both of those photographs. Because the proof wasn't strong, I was going to host the pictures locally rather than on Commons. But under the circumstances, I'm guessing you're right about the two pictures, so I should delete one and move the other to Commons as appropriate. (You'll have to teach me sometime how you figured that out!) And then there are no more free media left. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:37, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

StevenJ81: I think English should be fine as a start; it would at least be an improvement on the current situation, and it's better to do it now rather than later when you have hundreds of files or more to write rationales for. (I found the sources of those files by dropping them into Tineye and Google Image Search.) —LX (talk, contribs) 21:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

LX, thanks for this.

Perhaps this is a crazy idea, but do you think it would be okay to say that their EDP is the English Wikipedia's policy? Without importing anything (although the idea of copying just those two sounds good to me) – just "Ladino Wikipedia Policy: Our policy is that you have to comply with the English Wikipedia's policies (whatever they happen to say today)".

StevenJ81, I don't truly mind if you take over my talk page for this. Don't worry about that. One thought for you: If uploads are sysop-only and free content is not permitted (I think you have sound reasons for that position), then I think you also want to document that in a policy. It should take only a very brief sentence or two to tell people that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to all. I'm going to go forward as follows:

• I'm going to create a page to house a draft at ladwiki. (I'll add the link here as soon as I have it.) In effect, it will be a sandbox, since nothing exists yet. The draft is going to say that the English Wikipedia policy applies in full, except as modified on that page—and that the English version will be definitive, because it will be maintained and updated.
• The main exceptions will be around (a) no free media, (b) sysop upload only, and that (c) although enwiki policy will apply, items believed to be under copyright in Israel or Turkey, even if in the public domain in the US, will be considered "not-free" for the purpose of ladwiki.
• Once I'm finished drafting, I will put up a notice on our VP with a 30-day comment period.

I invite anyone to come over and comment there.

Finally, LX, watch for a ping to the talk page of the synagogue photo. I'm thinking JPost may have taken the picture from here, rather than vice versa. You'll see my reasoning there. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Status of Thursday morning 22 December. Good morning, all. Please see the page lad:Vikipedya:Exemption Doctrine Policy/en for my draft policy. Suggestions are welcome.

Additionally, I found substitutes for two of my logos on Commons, so deleted the local files. And I moved the cemetery picture to Commons, and deleted it locally. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I like it. It looks like a solid start to a low-maintenance effort.

I suggest that you change the word "Upload files" to {{int:upload}}. This code will automatically translate that phrase into whatever language the user has set in their preferences, which means that it's guaranteed to match the exact label for that link in the sidebar. (It will say "Upload file" for you here.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:52, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much, WhatamIdoing. (And your suggestion was very helpful.) I need low maintenance, so I hope this will work. Do I have to get someone from WMF to sign off on it in the end? StevenJ81 (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that you have to get anyone (except the local community) to approve it. User:Nemo bis might know for certain, but I think that it's just a matter of the community approving the policy (and the sysops continuing to enforce it). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:40, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Update and request for help 11 January 2017

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

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

Thanks! StevenJ81 (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Update 1 February 2017

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

Thanks for the update. Good luck! WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

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

guillom Thanks. I'll have a look. I didn't even remotely know where to start. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Update 1 March 2017

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

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

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

Speedy deletion nomination of Famous web search engine

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

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

Yo Ho Ho

Doug Weller talk is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a}} to your friends' talk pages.

Merry, merry!

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

January 2017 at Women in Red

January 2017
	Women Philosophers & Women in Education online editathons Faciliated by Women in Red

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

A barnstar for you!

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

Educational credentials?

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

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

Happy New Year, WhatamIdoing!

Happy New Year!

WhatamIdoing,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Codename Lisa (talk) 07:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Accuracy and precision

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

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

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

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

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

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

&

c) that the colours have not decayed over time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let's make a list:

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

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

WP:V

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

I disagree. Also, I know that WP:Secondary does not mean independent. There are independent sources that say that a particular URL isn't working; there are no secondary sources that say this. (A secondary source transforms previously published facts into a new intellectual product, e.g., by providing analysis, context, or commentary on the simple fact).

However, you have no sources that say that the video is not available anywhere at all. And you definitely don't have any source indicating that routine events, such as kids' videos disappearing from YouTube, is WP:DUE.

See, e.g., the discussion at WT:V and elsewhere over this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The OP at WT:V is the one that suggested the current wording of "no longer available". I definitely don't get the sense that there is consensus to remove the statement from the article. However, you seem to have misquoted the article in the course of that discussion. I don't think that's entirely constructive. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I added to your RSN comment

[13][14] Just so you know. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 01:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Announcements

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

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

Comment: transgender and intersex task forces

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

A cup of tea for you!

Thank you for the suggestions! Jackiekoerner (talk) 00:59, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

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

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

WikiProject Medicine predictions for Start-class articles

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

Hi Nettrom, I was just recommending your work to someone a couple of hours ago.

I think that anything in the WP:MED "namespace" is likely to be a good place for this kind of information. Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Assessment/Articles to re-classify, maybe? And thanks! WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree that creating is as a subpage of WP:MED is a good idea, and the proposed page seemed like a good place to put the list, so I went ahead and created it. Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Background on advertising the WikiProject Medicine app

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

Grade rationing listed at Redirects for discussion

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

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Acne vulgaris/archive2

While I did not add additional comments since January 2017, I had been following the Acne FAC. I think it could be a FA someday, but still needs significant work. Frankly, I love the stuff you posted here [15] and think that should all be in the article (very interesting tidbits!) Next time it goes up for a FAC please email me and I will post a review again. Thank you! (just fyi: I am putting a similar note on a few user pages) --My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 13:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Today I added a few sections to acne, but I am not sure this one works [16] - please feel free to move/adjust it. I liked your "self care" idea, but was not sure where to put it. Where should something like cosmetic adhesive pads be added [17]? --My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 17:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

===Self-care=== is usually a sub-section underneath ==Treatment== or ==Management==. Since it's just a single sentence at the moment, adding a section heading might be overkill. (I've also just noticed that ===Diet=== is two sentences, and doesn't mention chocolate, so that might benefit from expansion or re-working. [Info about chocolate is covered in the ==Causes== section instead.] Maybe the ===Treatment diet=== section should be re-worked into a ===Self-care=== section.)

BTW, have you tried VisualEditor recently (the one that works like a word processor)? Its automatic citoid service is pretty awesome, especially for PubMed URLs. You click the 'Cite' button and paste the URL in its 'Automatic' tab, and then it will generate the entire citation template for you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I've been too scared to try the VisualEditor! Maybe I should finally attempt to use it. --My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 15:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I also added a Self care section [18] --My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 16:46, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Since my last comment, I have already had to restore that section once. --My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 22:15, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

A lot of editors are happy with it now. You can probably see a pencil icon in the right-hand corner of your editing toolbar (on regular articles and user pages, not talk pages). Click that to have a look around. (Just close the tab to exit if you don't want to save your changes.) I recommend trying it out on a page that has a table, if you want to see one reason why people are increasingly enthusiastic about it.

As for the acne article, I suspect that it will be easier to improve the article a couple of weeks from now, when it's getting less attention from so many editors who have their own (and sometimes mutually incompatible) ideas about what constitutes "the rules" (e.g., whether it's okay to cite a peer-reviewed article to verify information that anyone in the developed world can verify by walking into any store that sells cosmetics). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I posted a comment [19] in response to having a few sourced facts I added later removed. I do see the incompatibility. --My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 20:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Acne listed at Redirects for discussion

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

Wikipedia:Project namespace

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

Hi Moxy,

I think that there has been a change in the way the m:Namespace shift happens. More drama, and less trying to fix up the documentation, maybe? It might be emblematic of how the community has changed. Overall, I think that page is more useful now that you've worked it over. Thanks.

However, I'm not certain that this page is correctly tagged as a guideline. It appears to have been a unilateral decision in 2012; a much earlier WP:PROPOSAL on the talk page failed. It feels a bit more like an information page to me. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I would tend to agree.--Moxy (talk) 13:59, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Good article reassessment of Alkaline diet

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

Just FYI

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

Regarding the Wikiproject Medicine image sourcing discussion

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

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

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

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

The "who really has time to check" problem is exactly why I keep "possible to verify" separate from "cited". Ghost citations, {{failed verification}}, and statements that were accurate when cited but have been changed since then, can be significant problems, so the presence of citations doesn't mean that the material is verifiABLE. On the other side, the absence of citations doesn't mean that the material can't be verified; it only means that nobody has made any explicit claims about where their (which may not be "the current") content came from.

I agree with giving up on this discussion: you're not going to win. But I hope that it will have inspired some of our more zealous editors to re-double their requests for image donations. We've made a lot of progress on that in the last year or two. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Still, I maintain that the starting point of all validity of the encyclopedia (as at least Sanger, if not Wales acknowledged) is that every factual claim is sourced. Citation does not ensure verifiability, but lack of it practically ensures that content will never be checked. And in my experience, unchecked early content—certainly in lower importance articles, but also in many highest importance ones—remain substantially inaccurate, poor in scope, off-point, etc. Perhaps your experiences are different; mine is largely based in the sciences, but—in seeking to maintain this professional sidebar activity as a pleasure—it has also extended to any area that students, colleagues, or family calls to my attention to WP content that is confusing, questionable, etc. (so this week has wandered into history, anima and other pop culture, current events, etc.).

With regard to the WP Medicine discussion, understand that starting out there, even knowing that Doc was one participant in the problem, was the right call strategically, and out of respect for the organisation, the Project, and Doc. But the matter will not end with that discussion. The fact that Doc gets consent for his images does not mean that all who upload do or will. Given Doc's esteem, and his role in creating and sustaining the problem (self-publishing medical information via images—had he never started, its resolution would be much simpler), I'm unsurprised that this is a dead end. But there is no way this practice continues in the long run. The ethical and intellectual consequences are too problematic, the potential implications too broad. The matter will get resolved somehow (if not bottom up, then some other way).

Look forward to seeing your work over time, in other places. Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 55#Title

I can't do that, I don't speak English .... put you on the talk page, to change name title and If you need to write what I wrote (Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 55#Title)

I'm sorry if you do not understand, I have used Google Translate --SrpskiAnonimac (talk) 12:02, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into your local language via meta

The 2016 Cure Award

In 2016 you were one of the top ~200 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 18:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

supplemental tag

My small change to a template seems to have caused a small problem at 2 pages...this needs to be addressed. Odd that it took so long for the problem to arise since the change..how can we make this more clear.....we link to WP:CON that explains that all these Page's have the same status as an essay....but I guess the template is not clear on that. What do you think is best here. This does not effect that many pages...as its the cat with the least amount of pages in it. --Moxy (talk) 15:53, 25 June 2017 (UTC) Pls see Wikipedia talk:Project namespace#Supplemental pages.

I really don't know, Moxy. As you probably guessed, if I had a great solution, then I'd have suggested it already. I actually like your change on the more theoretical side, but the process of sorting through which ones "should" say which things (and wondering whether anyone who cares about that page will complain if it is corrected) makes me feel tired.

(Why it took so long for people to notice is an easy question: WP:Nobody reads the directions, and they definitely don't read them more than once.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:36, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 10:40, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

You are very welcome. I'm super happy about your work there, and as there's relatively little that I can do to help you beyond cheering from the sidelines, then I'm going to cheer as much as I can.  ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:24, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to RfC about including Wikibooks in cross-wiki search results

Hello. You were involved in the previous discussion about cross-wiki search results, so I invite you to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Should Wikibooks pages be displayed in search results. --George Ho (talk) 16:20, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Usage of RFC

I don't know why RFC is unnecessary, but I removed it as you wished me to. BTW, I already notified some related WikiProjects about the discussion, so that should suffice. If RFC is unnecessary, but no one else participates, how else would others know about one discussion without notification? --George Ho (talk) 18:34, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the RFC tag.

It doesn't matter if anyone outside that group knows about that discussion. Nobody outside that group needs to know about that discussion, because nobody outside that group gets to make that decision. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:39, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. I immediately read WP:requests for comment#Before starting the process... I guess I must take a self-note on this one. --George Ho (talk) 18:45, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for the edit with summary "Clarify the person you're supposed to be discussing things with" though this was never in any question in my mind. Its possible we see things differenty the moment a 3rd party enters the D, but for the nutshell, I do think your clarification might help newbies. Thanks. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello

I don't know anything about becoming an administrator for the ht wikipedya and remembered you mentioning it sometime in the past. I am not sure what djames question is about. Can you hold my hand through the becoming-an-administrator-process?

Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 21:28, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Go to w:ht:Wikipedya:Paj_Kominote#Sesyon_2017 and copy what Aliceba wrote in a new section. Only write about you and your translation work and your accounts, instead of about her work. Begin with "I am applying to become an admin... and go on until you feel like you're finished explaining. Post it at the bottom of the page.

Ping me when you're done. I'll do the rest (just like I'm doing for Aliceba). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Isn't that crazy?

Out of all the womens health topics, you would have thought that pain managment during childbirth would have been written years ago. Thanks for the image.

Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 21:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I can be surprised by any gap in our coverage of anything related to babies and children any more. Back labor happens in 30% births, but the article didn't exist even three years ago, and it's still just an 8-sentence stub. Articles get written when someone cares, and it seems that more of our editors care about sports than about complications of childbirth. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm PRehse. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Serious Hazards of Transfusion, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

PRehse (talk) 06:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Do you check to see whether editors are autopatrolled? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Some slight concerns

Hello! I've been pretty happy about the time that I've been able to put into the ht wikipedya but have some slight concerns that you probably already know about. First of all, a lot of the articles that I would like to translate have referencing problems. I haven't followed the continuing development of MEDRS but my impression is that most med articles were written before MEDRS and now a lot of medical editors are playing catch-up to bring the references up-to-date. I've done this for a few articles. The one that comes to mind is MRSA. I had to literally 'scrub' the article from all primary sources. Jtydog was very active in this edit-a-thon and we worked together very nicely. But it took a lot of effort. I keep looking at articles that I want to translate and see that the referencing is not very good. Breastfeeding comes to mind, for example. Gestational diabetes is another. Do you think this is just because there are not enough of us to keep up with all the updating of references? I really don't like to translate an article unless, at least, the referencing is good. Are my standards too high?

Second concern - I hesitate to add more content to the ht wikipedya because there is still no admin in place that can block vandals from removing all the content that I have translated. I don't want to see the hours (days really) of work disappear in just a few hours. I know you are working on that. I guess I just wanted to explain why I have delayed adding more content. Keep up the good work.

Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 12:33, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Barbara,

I read my usual list backwards today, so I'm seeing this just after I passed the RFA list off to the Stewards. We should have two admins at htwiki soon.  :-)

Vandals at htwiki are unusual, and all you have to do is revert them, so I encourage you to not let that stop you.

I think that the main reason that the articles you want to translate are not well-developed (or are even non-existent) is because they're about pregnancy and children, which has historically been uninteresting to Wikipedia's mostly male, mostly childless editors. Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Translation task force/RTT(Simplified)#OBGYN.2FPeds has a list of articles in that area that are allegedly in good condition and therefore ready to translate. Both Gestational diabetes and Breastfeeding are on the list. If they're not in an acceptable condition now, then their presence on that list should certainly be discussed. For "big" subjects like gestational diabetes, the entire article can be sourced to secondary sources, so it probably should be. For "small" or quirky subjects, the use of primary sources can improve the article, although they should not exceed half of the article (and ideally would be much less).

Breastfeeding is not exclusively, or even primarily, a medical topic, so sourcing rules are different for each sentence/subtopic there – but that's primarily a difference of using independent, secondary, medical sources for the exclusively medical content, and using equally good independent, secondary, non-medical sources for the non-medical content (e.g., how women feel shamed if they can't breastfeed).

I'm really not sure how the RTT lists were determined. There seem to be quite a few rare diseases, and things listed under "Emergency medicine" that I'd have put under Ob/Gyn/Peds, and things under Ob/Gyn/Peds that I'd have listed under something else (like Marfan syndrome, which is usually diagnosed in young adults and which is 50–50 male/female). But looking over that page, if you haven't already, might save you some prep work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

About breastfeeding...if you take a look at the editing history you can see that I did a substantial trim because it was my judgement that the sources were inferior and not MEDRS. My opinion is that sources for a topic like this may not need to be from MEDRSs for the socio-psycological perspective, but it had better be better than an UNDUE from the NYT. Interestingly enough, I got a thank you for that edit. I know I can find better sources (I have a Pitt library card).

I had the same curiosity about how the RTT lists were determined. Well, I found out the answer and it doesn't matter. Many of the RTTs are out-of-date. All of them seem to come from a male perspective - this is an opinion and impossible to prove just like suspicions that content may come from a POV. The non existent article on Pain management in childbirth is, in itself, a statement about priorities, isn't it? I didn't even check to see when the RTTS were created but they were created by a single author and not copy-edited by any others.

As for the exclusively medical content, I was set straight during the massive update I did to MRSA. I included non MEDRS to support content if the major focus was animals. Oh no. My edits were reverted by two editors that insisted that since animals harbor MRSA that could pass it on to humans, then MEDRS applies. So the miniature consensus that formed on the MRSA talk page was that if content impacted human health in any way, then it's time to use MEDRS. The questionable term here is 'health'. If the content is related to health, is it required to use MEDRS? Except for history, the vast majority of content on Breastfeeding should be sourced as highly as it can.

Think about this: If a RTT was written by one editor and then translated in a hundred languages without question or review, could this even be a good thing? ...one editor's decision on what should be translated and what should not? Since you are cognizant of some aspects of translation efforts, perhaps you might be a little uncomfortable at this point. Basically there should be a consensus and discussion of what med topics should be translated. It should not be the decision of or the content created by one editor. I registered my concerns and was kindly told that I could translate whatever parts of a medical article that I wished. So I have.

Here is good example of my independent and female perspective. Rabies is one of those articles that has been determined to be needed in all languages - I heartily agree. But knowing Haiti and the tragedy of rabies prevalence there, an article on rabies is not good enough. An article on rabies prevention is/was needed. An article on dog bites is/was needed. Vaccination information needed to be expanded for readers of kreyol. My perspective of a woman/mother/grandmother is: babies/children/anyone should not have to die because the information did not exist in their language. The opposite is true of creating an article on Lymes disease. It doesn't exist in Haiti and so we are supposed to translate an article for a global audience on a disease that exists in NE US? Even the women's health articles that have been identified as needing global translation have a huge flaw. Descriptions of human disease assumes the knowledge of anatomy and physiology. It does no woman any good to know about pelvic inflammatory disease if she doesn't know what a uterus, peritoneal cavity or fallopian tubes might be. I feel the same way about writing about fertility treatments in kreyol. As far as I know, there are no facilities (except in Petionville maybe) in all of Haiti to be treated for infertility. If you are a well-to-do woman in Haiti and you want to be treated for infertility you go to Miami, not Wikipedia.

What a lovely rant I've just had. There really are no other editors that care about this topic. Thanks for reading and all that you do.

The Very Best of Regards,

Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 20:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I took your one suggestion

You mentioned that many med articles do not exclusively contain medical content. I have come up with a set of search aids that take your observation into account. See the talk page of Breastfeeding difficulties and tell me what you think.

Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 13:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

That's being discussed at WT:MED now; let's centralize. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:58, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Hard spaces

Hey WAID the software is adding hardspaces on its own such as in this edit[20]

Can you have this looked into? Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Doc James, those were non-breaking spaces before. WikEd simply turns them into their HTML character reference name (on edit, which is somewhat suboptimal, but I don't know if anything can be done about that), rather than letting them persist unknown to the common editor. Then, they can be removed, because they are obviously inappropriate there. --Izno (talk) 00:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Izno the Q is what is adding these "non-breaking spaces"? I have seen them a fair bit lately. Does VE add them? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:45, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

So far as I understand, most appearances are accidental, either being copied and pasted from somewhere by accident or by what is apparently a trivial process of creation on Mac computers. VE does not add them any more than the normal editor adds them. --Izno (talk) 01:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Doc James in that diff, did you do anything other than change "patients" to "people"? Jytdog (talk)

The only think I did was change pt to people using the old editor. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:08, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Izno is correct about the Non-breaking space. I don't think that it's actually possible to insert non-breaking spaces in VisualEditor right now; I believe that they're getting automatically stripped.

I can, however, tell you a highly reliable method for stopping those conversions of invisible and usually harmless non-breaking spaces into HTML: Stop using WP:WikEd. Or at least beg the WikEd maintainers to stop doing this conversions outside of the mainspace. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Ah it is the WikEd tool. Will ask. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:23, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

This edit by User:Barbara (WVS) has added a bunch of hidden hard spaces and it was using VE.[21]

Barbara do you copy and paste the text from another editing problem? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:48, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the question, but if I add content+ref to one article and the same content and ref is appropriate to include in another article, then yes, I suppose I do. But I just use the Cntrl C keybord shortcut to do it. May that is what is happening. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 21:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

How did you conclude that those are non-breaking spaces? When I look at the article, the text breaks in the places where you say that there are non-breaking spaces present. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes if you go here[22] and search for the text "humans infest any other host species" you do not see the  

But than with WikEd they appear. "the [[body louse]] and the [[crab louse]] The"

WikEd says they preexisting and they are just converting them to visible?[23] So how does one stop the invisible hard spaces from being added? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Filled out a phabricator ticket here to try to get this problem fixed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:51, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

At the Signpost this was a problem and we discovered a simple search-replace workaround for users with MS Word. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Recent DYK Nomination

Hello! Your submission of Serious Hazards of Transfusion 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! ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 20:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck but claims to be an expert...

I was considering asking for a topic ban with regards to our dear friend at WT:V, but after having approached two editors about it, one deleted my comment without responding and the other said they didn't feel they could support such an action at this time. I note that they've been rather quiet for the past couple of days, but I wonder whether that simply means that when they return, it will be with a vengeance. In any case, just wanted you to know that if you're considering such an action, you're not alone in that consideration. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 17:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail

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

Trusttri (talk) 03:40, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not very interested in being interviewed. Good luck to you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Serious Hazards of Transfusion

On 13 September 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Serious Hazards of Transfusion, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the UK organization Serious Hazards of Transfusion discourages hospitals from using some blood products donated by women? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Serious Hazards of Transfusion. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Serious Hazards of Transfusion), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih^Talk 00:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Family Guy lead, redux

Please see Talk:Family guy#Participant survey, about resolving questions not resolved in the earlier RfC.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  17:06, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Bonjou

I was going over recent changes on the ht wikipedya and found this. I think I might know what this page is about, but I am not sure if I have a role in it. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 01:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Those people are m:Global renamers. It's a special user right. Local admins can't do it any longer because of m:SUL. Generally, you can ignore those changes (although if an account gets renamed into something obviously inappropriate, then you should get in touch with the global renamer directly). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:22, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Good news for me. I was afraid that I had do something else... While I have your attention, I would like to know how to delete an article. There are a few of them that have recently been created that I don't think can remain in Wikipedya. I have posted the proposed deletion (or not) discussion on the talk page to get community consensus. I seen no need to block anyone but their 'article' might not be appropriate for an encyclopedia. Thank you. I'm sorry if you didn't count on having to 'train' a new administrator. Is there a WP page that explains how to delete an article (after discussion, of course)? Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 19:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't mind answering questions. It looks like Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Deleting has the instructions that you need ...assuming that the two wikis are set up the same way, which might not be the case. So if that doesn't work, then let me know, and I'll find another set of directions.  :-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:43, 9 October 2017 (UTC)