User talk:WhatamIdoing/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions with User:WhatamIdoing. 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 1

←

Archive 3

→

Counter

You helped me in the past, and I wondered if you could help me again. I used to access a counter page that could tell me how many edits I made on any Wikipedia page (e.g., an article, a discussion page, a template page, a user pages, etc.). The counter I use can no longer do that for me. I wondered if you know of a counter page that can count how many edits I made on any specific page. Thank you.Iss246 (talk) 03:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You might try this one. If you want detailed/non-summary information, you need to create a page at User:Iss246/EditCounterOptIn.js (with any non-blank content; mine says "Information wants to be free"). Expect a scary-looking warning (boilerplate for all pages ending in .js) when you create the page.

If that counter doesn't do what you want, then please let me know. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I use the first one: http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/pcount/index.php?name=Iss246&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia but it no longer tells me the number of contributions specific article by specific article.

I created this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Iss246/EditCounterOptIn.js&action=edit&redlink=1 but I don't know how to use it. How will it give me a count of, say, the edits I made on the Work & Stress article? Iss246 (talk) 04:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The .js page doesn't seem to exist: it's still a WP:Red link. After you create/save the page, then the other link should provide you much more detail. Compare, e.g., the report you got for your own account with the report for mine (be sure to click the 'show' links at the bottom).

Also, for individual articles, you can try this counter, which can be reached at the "External tools: Revision history statistics" link on every article's history page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't get further than what I already have on my iss246 page. The bottom of my soxred page reads as follows:

Month counts User has not yet opted in. If you want to see graphs, please create User:Iss246/EditCounterOptIn.js with any content. Alternatively, you can create meta:User:Iss246/EditCounterGlobalOptIn.js to opt-in across all Wikimedia wikis. Top edited articles User has not yet opted in. If you want to see graphs, please create User:Iss246/EditCounterOptIn.js with any content. Alternatively, you can create meta:User:Iss246/EditCounterGlobalOptIn.js to opt-in across all Wikimedia wikis.

I don't know what to do with those meta sites. I tried to opt in, but I'm not sure what that means. I can neither get monthly counts (which I once had) and counts of my edits on specific articles and other pages (which I once had). I wouldn't mind if you did the edits for me. I am lost.Iss246 (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I can't do this step for you. Try just this bit:

Click here.
Click "Start the User:Iss246/EditCounterOptIn.js page"
In the resulting edit box, type anything you like -- "I'm so frustrated", "This is harder than necessary", mash the keyboard, anything, but there must be at least one character in the edit box, or it won't save the page properly.
Save the page (like you would for anything else).
Come back to this page, and let me know that you've gotten this far. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I got the counter working the way I want. Thank you. You are unfailingly helpful. You, and people like you, make Wikipedia a hospitable place. Best wishes.Iss246 (talk) 22:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad that it has worked out. This complication with the .js pages is a new thing, apparently required by some German privacy law. (The toolserver system is physically located in Germany.) Take care, WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

question

Hi. Another question: what's the quickest way to see my userpages (pages I'ves started but haven't yet presented to wikipedia's eager audience)? I've got a couple I am working on and can't find them. Thanks. Jim Steele (talk) 23:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Click here. This uses Special:PrefixIndex, and is described at WP:Subpages. As an alternative, you can look at Special:Contributions/Jimsteele9999 to scan through the list of any page you've ever edited. This is sometimes handy for pages that you've recently edited, but can't quite remember the name of. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Anonymity, etc.

With regard to that paper you reviewed for me, thank you so much for your feedback. I have tried to address and integrate all of the comments you raised. I also sent you back an e-mail with some comments as well. Also, I would like to at least mention you in the paper acknowledgments, so if you want to e-mail me your name I will do that. However, if you wish to maintain anonymity, I totally respect that. Just let me know what you want to do. Thanks again for everything! ---kilbad (talk) 22:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kilbad,

I apologize for disappearing on you. My "e-life" has been disrupted by an unexpected hard drive failure (complete with out-of-date backups for a good deal of relatively unimportant data). My laptop died Wednesday night, with the sudden appearance of an ominous ticking sound -- the sound of a disk head gently scraping data off the drive. I hope to re-read the paper soon -- but please don't wait on me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Hypoglycemia

Hello WAID I am thinking of doing some work on hypoglycemia. I have pulled up a few review articles and intend to reference the peice. Looks like it has been controversial in the past so though I would give you a heads up.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. If memory serves, one of the outstanding questions is whether the AltMed conception of hypoglycemia should be incorporated.

Is there any chance you'd just happen to spontaneously feel like putting this off until the Google project is a little less active? I'm concerned about dividing our attention. It's all very well and good for them to provide these (valuable) external reviews and suggestions, but we're the ones that have to implement the suggestions. And since there are ~~about ten~~ more than 20 of them doing these reviews, I'm concerned that we'll be getting further behind with every new review. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay will do. I still feel that the google reviews have been in the wrong order. Unless an editor is ready for a review and has brought the article as far as the can a review is not as useful as it could be. I was working on the asthma page but it is such a huge topic and there is so much work yet to be done.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind having them start with moderately lousy articles, but they're about 80% done with the reviews, and we're about 20% done with lining up editors to work on them. One of the 'lessons learned' ought to be that Wikipedia's volunteer resources are limited. A pile of excellent suggestions doesn't do us much good if the suggestions never move off the talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Notability of small settlements

I saw that you contributed to the discussion at WT:N#Notability of small settlements, so you may be interested in a policy proposal I have made concerning this issue at the Village pump. Regards. Claritas (talk) 17:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

RfD nomination of FWSE

Perhaps you could add some text...

You raised a great point at the medicine talk page. Yeah, currently, I only want to tag redirects for disease synonyms found in the list of cutaneous conditions. This is not to say that someday we will not also tag other types I redirects, but that is where I am starting. With that being said, would you consider adding some text to the relevant sections at WP:DERM:A about which articles and redirects should be tagged? Regardless, thanks again for all your help in the past! ---kilbad (talk) 00:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Let me think it over for a few days.

Are the ones you want to tag pretty consistently marked with {{R from alternative name}}? That could be used by a bot to find the ones you want to tag. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks... and unfortunately, I just started using that template the last few months... so many of the pertinent redirects do not have that template. ---128.248.202.31 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC).

suggestion

Hi. It seems special education is vandalized regularly, and I'm thinking it should be protected. Can you do that? Thanks, JS. Jim Steele (talk) 16:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't do it, but anyone can request it by posting a note at WP:RFPP (ask for semi-protection). I'm not sure that it will be approved, though. It's only been vandalized about four times in the last month, which isn't much. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Why does everyone assume you are an admin? (Including me at times!) :) Do want me to nominate you? Or is that a dumb question...? --Jubilee ♫clipman 19:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes WAID I also think you would make a great admin and would support this nomination.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Asking formally

Would you like to be an admin? I will nominate you, if so (even though the procedure looks somewhat scary!) --Jubilee ♫clipman 02:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Now I get it

You wrote "The same can be said, BTW, for Noah Webster's works". Suddenly I understand why we have so many spelling issues with WP:ENGVAR :-) LeadSongDog come howl! 21:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I want to say that I am extremely grateful for your reply at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Self-published. So far, you seem to be the only editor who believes that a press release (e.g., from BP about their oil spill, on their own website) is self-published.

Fundamentally, I think people have got their wires crossed: WP:SPS warns about the reliability of self-published sources. So what's a self-published source? Why, it's whatever seems unreliable to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Jessica

Jessica wanted me to move the most recent SPI page you made at here for Dieudonne Carrington isnt actually posted on the SPI page. Either under pending or awaiting admin approval . I guess the bot is down or something? But its not on the pending approval page or anything. So if you could fix that, i dont feel like learning the new system (used checkuser, havent learned SPI formatting). She keeps asking me about opening up a ANI discussion for her too :sigh:. Anyway have a nice day. MrMacMan^Talk 01:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you should feel obligated to carry messages for her. In fact, if I were you, the only message I'd carry would be to her family, and it would be to ask them if they understand the situation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah she just messages me a lot with requests since she claims that she isnt socking anymore until her Arb ban goes away. Despite that it has become clear that she is socking. The latest of such is pretty blatantly obvious User:Sharon Applebaum - while the low amount of edits is hard to be sure, but use of minor edits, tagging and most damning 'Sharon Applebaum'. Ms. Applebaum is the Assistant Principal at Jessica's former school. As you can see from their main page here. If you want to teach me the new SPI system ill go ahead and file a report when there is more edits to back my assertion. Then again she will probably dump that account since she follows both your and my edit history everyday. MrMacMan^Talk 04:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi WAID. Looks like she may be incarnated again on the special education page. Her edits/suggestion on the talk page are dubious.

Jim Steele (talk) 21:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Oy vey. I think she may be at it again. Seems like I won't need to say much in terms of proof because the insipid posts speak for themselves. Check out the similar cadence via special education by Bryan something. The name changes but the smell persists...

Jim Steele (talk) 22:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I've been offline for a little over a week (a bit strange, but largely refreshing). I see that you figured out WP:SPI, and the latest account by that permanently banned user has already been blocked.

I've responded to the latest talk page discussion and re-fixed the sock-introduced nonsense in the article.

I wonder how many more times we'll have to provide links to official UK government documents that include words like "segregation" before the UK contingent will quit saying that the UK does not use such terms? (As a point of fact, I've chosen terms in that article primarily based on making the links work: It names "mainstreaming" and "inclusion" because there are articles at Mainstreaming (education) and Inclusion (education), but not at Integration (education) or Normalisation (education).) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:23, 18 June 2010

(UTC)

Interesing choice of words, seeing how I often have to refresh my desktop. Strange seems more appropriate, but it's a necessary stop on the long, uphill climb to individuality. Can't say I figured out the SPI, though, I just kind of posted it in haste and let the experienced ones do the rest. Story of my time here, really...Should be snuffed out, though, this wretch who meddles. The arguments about correct wording, proper phrasing and such regarding special education are nonsense. Fighting over semantics takes energies away from important issues. I wouldn't waste time. It's like explaining to a kid how important it is to look both way before he crosses the street, and he keeps interupting you, telling you about his nickle-plated bicycle. Thanks for cleaning up the smears by the sock.Jim Steele (talk) 01:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

RFC tag

Please try to be more careful in adjusting tags in the future. There is a parameter to add more than one topic. It is a style issue. If there is anything else it is probably politics. I kept soc in based on your edit.Cptnono (talk) 06:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure, it's a style issue, but it is definitely not a question of how to change a style guideline, which is the (exclusive) purpose of the style page. If you'll go look at {{Wider attention}}, you'll find the the |style parameter is explicitly listed as being used only on "non-article pages". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, and a quick question

Thanks for your advise to my question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Your_opinion_on_my_right_to_post_external_links.2C_please...

I really appreciate your suggestions and will follow up on them. I would like to ask you a question: Will my account automatically be blocked if I add something, as EyeSerene suggested on my talk page, or is this more of a process that I could prevent by adding additional details, as you suggested? Thanks and have a nice day Digitaldomain (talk) 18:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't really do automatic blocks of registered accounts. Every block is handled individually by a human, and is usually preceded by repeated warnings (nominally four). If you did get blocked (and accidents presumably do happen), then it's not necessarily permanent, as you can appeal the block.

You might want to create your own user page (click here to start it), where you can post (almost) anything you want. In particular, you might like to post information about

the fact that Wikipedia approves of people like you sharing suitable and appropriate external links (with quotations and links to relevant policies and guidelines, if you're feeling a bit paranoid)
a statement that only a single individual is using this account (if true; if not, we need to fix that so that it is true, because shared accounts violate the terms of service).

(BTW, you are permitted to remove or make your own archive of old messages from your talk page if you're tired of looking at them.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you remove other people's posts from your talk page? I thought I did that once and was accused of "refactoring". Thanks in advance.

Jim Steele (talk) 13:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you can. The relevant rules are at WP:TALK#Others' comments (which, now that I look, were heavily edited in January to obscure this point). There are a few exceptions, like removing a block notice while the block is in force. A few editors get fussy if you do this, and a few more are unaware of what the rule actually are, but it is, and has always been, permissible.

Properly speaking, refactoring is changing a message (say, by deleting half of it), not its wholesale removal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy notification

Hello. Just to let you know I mentioned your reply to a question raised at Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists#Lead and selection criteria reg football player lists, in an RfC at WT:FOOTY#Name of football player lists. Hope I didn't misrepresent you. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

From a while ago

You commented here: Talk:Radiation (pain) (the page was originally here) a long time ago, but I thought that it was fair enough.

I was bold and moved it, added some disambiguation templates and the like. I will improve the article when I get chance.

Please comment here on my actions if you think what I did was not for the best. Kind regards, Captain n00dle \^Talk 21:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for Comment needing your input

Hi, I'd like to ask for your input here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Minphie. Recently you commented on Minphie's conduct and we ask if you could come and give feedback at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Minphie as the editor appears not to have taken any heed of the community's feedback on his approach to editing. If you don't remember your exact interactions with Minphie, it is detailed in the RfC/U page. Thankyou for your time, --Figs Might Ply (talk) 23:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:V

I simply cannot continue going in circles on that particular discussion; so, I will not be commenting on it any further. Due to the heavily involved nature of the discussion, I felt this courtesy message was called for.

Hopefully, we will cross paths again. Chickenmonkey 04:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Not a dictionary

Please check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lady. Thanks.Kitfoxxe (talk) 02:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Another question

I would appreciate it if you could explain to me what happened here (the next 3 lines are copied from my watchlist):

June 2, 2010

(Deletion log); 19:53 . . NawlinWiki (talk | contribs) changed revision visibility of Psychology: removed edit summary for 1 revision (RD2: Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material)

What did NawlinWiki do? And why? I don't understand this. Thanks. Iss246 (talk) 21:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Revision deletion doubtless has the details, but as I understand it, this is done when a vandal puts something libelous or patently offensive into an article, and an admin wants to make sure that other people can't see it, even if they're looking at the Help:Page history. It's a way of making a change to a page "disappear". With this approach, the change is invisible to you and me, but could be seen by an admin. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Iss246 (talk) 03:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

hmm

Any reason why this [1]is? I seem to follow the procedure and it won't show the citations. Also, the help page like so many on wikipedia is turgid. Jim Steele (talk) 16:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

After a couple of minutes' confusion, I figured it out. It looked like a typo: instead of putting the ref before the close tag (the </ref>), you accidentally put it inside the close ref tag (< text /ref>). The 'missing' ref tag then ate the rest of the page. (A missing or broken ref tag is a good thing to look for if you make a change, and suddenly a previously long article stops dead right after the last reference, or skips all the text between the ref you were editing and the next.)

BTW, if you find these clickable footnotes to be more bother than they're worth, you can choose classic parenthetical references instead on any article that you create. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, you are a great resource! If I had it within my power I would give you a fancy graphic that says so. But in the meantime you will have to accept my genuine gratitude. It's bonafide, heartfelt, but not embellished (although my reputation precedes me, according to at least one person I am a covert agent of some type. References will be forthcoming).

Jim Steele (talk) 18:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for strike-out info

Thanks - I'll fix it when I have time to wrestle with formatting. Assuming you read my apology - I found something better to read before editing Wikipedia, to improve my tone rather than degrade it: Feynman's memoirs. ;-) Postpostmod (talk) 13:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Socks and may be shoes

Truce! lets try to work this out sensibly, personally i would prefer to leave most Wikipedia editor issues with those who have the time and patients to fully under who is who with regard to Socks etc, but in the last few days it have been difficult for me to understand who was who, which is part of my processing issues.

My main concern is to have an article free of any particular countries special education jargon be it the USA the UK or anywhere else. I am aware of the Criticisms regarding special education which exist in the USA regarding the current system there, which may not be shared in other countries So may be renaming the section as say "controvercies" may be a way forward. (never could spell that word) dolfrog (talk) 16:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that we can avoid including a few terms: We need to build the web and provide convenient 'handles' for readers. Not using any terms means that we'd have to say everything the long way -- like "malignant disease of the bone marrow that dramatically increases white blood cell counts" instead of using 'jargon' like "leukaemia".

I have no particular objection to renaming the "Criticisms" section. However, "Controversies" might encourage people to add specific historical scandals (for example, deaf students raped in Italy), rather than general complaints that apply pretty much everywhere. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm stead-fast against renaming the section. "Controversies" suggest a bickering, combative aspect of the section, which is what we want to avoid. The reason why "critism" is used is because it suggest that these particular areas are being analyzed and evaluated because their efficacy has yet to be determined. Also, I do think it would encourage scandalous material. Jim Steele (talk) 00:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Guess what I saw in clinic today...

Accessory nail of the fifth toe... just fyi. And I took some photos I will upload later. ---kilbad (talk) 01:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Cool! I hope that the photos turn out to your satisfaction. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

global

Hi. I'm all for different aspects of special education being represented. Which is why we have "differences by location." I'm really starting to lose my patience with the assertion the article is biased towards U.S. settings. Tempest in a teapot, really. The references you listed were great, but in vain as they weren't read. Looks to me we have some parents with an axe to grind, or some people with a violation of NPOV in there somewhere. Seeing how it's an article I've taken the time to improve, by slowly adding references (and it seems there are very little editors in this project who seem to care about education-related articles) , I'm not going to let it be tampered with easily. I'm going to take a break, turn a blind eye, unless the article is changed without good reason. The Kafka short stories need attention for now. Thanks for the effort, by the way, listing the sources so quickly on the talk page. Jim Steele (talk) 01:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

By the way, you're work with the article is appreciated. No doubt we're going to get the occasional speenful editor. Just wish they'd be informed. That way, even if I disagree, there's something beneficial left. Jim Steele (talk) 02:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

MOS:COLLAPSE

Hi there. I've restored the text which mentioned "consolidating information covered in prose".

There was a discussion on the matter around 4-6 months ago. Originally it took place at WP:ACCESS, and focussed on whether collapsible content was an accessibility issue. Once establishing that it was not, the discussion moved to the main MoS talk page, where we asked why it was acceptable to have collapsible content in an infobox, but not collapsible content in a non-infobox template that served a similar purpose. The two examples that were used were a collapsible family tree in an article about a royal family, and the use of {{footballbox collapsible}} in articles where the match events have already been described (such as the work in progress 2009–10 Watford F.C. season). The counterargument was that an infobox should consolidate information that is covered in the article, and thus "consolidate content already covered in prose" was conceived.

Admittedly it's a pretty clunky phrase. If you agree with the intended meaning, free to be bold and improve it. If you feel that the intended meaning does not reflect consensus, I would be happy for the discussion to be reopened. Regards, WFCforLife (talk) 13:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I have two problems with this section (although your relatively restrained changes may be just fine). The first is that this was being abused by an editor at Eating disorder and other articles to justify hiding most of the regular article text in large sections (more or less anything after an introductory paragraph in some sections).

The second is that all of these discussions have been based on a remarkably limited conception of disability:

The ACCESS discussion determined that collapsed text is not an accessibility issue for people with visual impairments.
The ACCESS discussion absolutely ignored the fact that collapsed or hidden text is a major accessibility problem for people who experience serious pain whenever they have to use a mouse.

Do you believe that RSIs present no accessibility issues, and that regular article content should be hidden from people with (for example) carpal tunnel syndrome? If the information is worth including, surely it's worth making accessible to the 1% of readers who have RSIs? (There are about 30 readers with RSIs for every user of a screen reader.)

Or is ACCESS only about accessibility for people with the "right" kind of disabilities? Architects frequently believe that the only disabilities that matter are those that involve the use of a wheelchair, and thus mindlessly harm people with neuropathic pain in their feet by replacing a couple of stairs with a very long ramp that requires them to take many extra steps. Does Wikipedia believe that blindness is the only disability that might benefit from accommodation? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we're in agreement that even with my changes, the editing at Eating disorder would clearly be a breach of the MoS. I don't know the editor well enough to gauge whether it was a case of deliberately pushing the boundaries, an edit to prove a point, or if the problem was caused by my poor English. If it's the latter, I sincerely apologise.

Now to address your second point. I support a small club and wish to remain anonymous, so I won't go into details. But while I don't suffer from RSI, I do have a minor physical disability. In fairness even I describe it as minor, and I wouldn't sacrifice a limb or one of my senses to get rid of it. But in the real world I am aware of the disadvantage that a less obvious disability can put a person at.

That said, going with the examples I gave previously, I do not believe that the spirit of this change would put those with RSI at a disadvantage. An example I would cite is Ancestry of Elizabeth II. If the dates of birth and death were incorporated into the text, and the article was several times longer (for instance Ancestry of the British Royal Family), those with RSIs would be at no disadvantage, while the benefits of collapsing the family trees would be obvious for all.

A slightly different example is {{footballbox collapsible}} in the incomplete 2009–10 Watford F.C. season. I won't bore you with the reasons, but with that template some of the information is visible in the collapsed state. Of the hidden information, every goalscorer and player sent off will be recorded in the prose, and brought together in the player statistics. The attendance for each match will very soon be available in a "fans" section. This leaves only the name of the referee, which many editors at the football project think is trivia anyway.

To summarise: My view is that under tight restrictions collapsible sections can on occasion enhance an article. I would welcome any move that helped minimize the scope for abuse. Although I would press hard to keep this change, if it was deemed unworkable I would question whether any collapsible content should be allowed. I see (but for the reasons above disagree with) the argument against all collapsible content. But I cannot see why infoboxes should be considered a special case. WFCforLife (talk) 21:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Special education

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Special education. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that you need to look much more closely at the situation. Yes, we have a content dispute: the anon is having trouble figuring out the difference between a setting for education (a place or circumstance) and tracking students (assigning kids to "college bound" or "vocational training", usually with no ability to change tracks).

However, I don't think that there is an edit war. The anon is improperly removing sourced information and adding claims that have been confirmed to be unverifiable misinformation, but there's an active discussion on the talk page, and WP:Edit war excludes changes that are being discussed from the definition of an edit war -- see the "rather than try to resolve the disagreement by discussion" in the very first sentence of that policy.

Finally, there's some reason to believe that this anon is the banned user Jessica Liao, and reverting problems caused by a banned user is never considered to be edit warring. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Firstly let me apologise for the strength and tone of my message which I have now struck. I know you are nowhere near 3RR and I certainly didn't mean to threaten you with a block. What I was actually looking for was a friendly reminder to adhere to WP:BRD, which I believe was warranted because both you and the unregistered editor seemed to be reinstating your edits after they had already been reverted before. You're right, I do not have the full background on this dispute because I have not been involved with this article. I can't remember why it is even on my watchlist. So I may have got this wrong; hence my intention to give a friendly reminder. Anyway keep up the good work ;) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Er... WP:DTTR...? --Jubilee ♫clipman 18:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't really agree with that essay, but I accept I picked the wrong template this time. And since I templated the unregistered editor I felt I should do likewise here for fairness and to avoid giving the impression of any favouritism. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

catching up

Hi WhatamIdoing I have been busy in the real world researching Motor Neuron Disease, MND, for my local University. Not a subject I know much about so the initial research took some time, and there will more needed later. The discussions on the Special Education talk page seem to be progressing slowly and quite well, which is understandable due to the complex nature of the topic, the differences in the language different countries use, and the different ways of providing special education in each country which can change as a result of newly elected government or advmace in the understanding of the differences involved. I noticed in the text of the discussion that you had asked me a question which i missed, to answer now on the Special Education talk page would disturb the flow of the existing discussion. But if you still want an answer just ask away and i will try to reply dolfrog (talk) 19:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The question at Talk:Special education#Criticism_section can wait until someone wants to repeat the nonsensical claim that the criticisms of special education/its delivery are exclusive to America, or that every single special parent in every other country in the world is perfectly satisfied with the way their society handles students who have special educational needs.

IMO we are progressing quite badly. "A lot of words" is not the same thing as "progress". At the moment, we're mostly trying to remove misinformation provided by a young woman who has deep difficulties with understanding language. She persistently introduces outright errors, and it takes hours to convince her that she has, in fact, (wildly) misunderstood the sources. For example, we had a dispute over at Tracking (education) about whether a source that does not even mention the word "setting" can be used to support a claim that "setting" is an exact synonym for "tracking". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, WhatamIdoing. You have new messages at Talk:Special education.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Apology

Dear WhatamIdoing,

I like to apologize sincerely for my mistakes. You see, it wasn't intentional. When I told you on the talk page that I made a mistake, then it was a good faith one. I like to work with you collaboratively but blaming me because of others lack of knowledge of the way the US school system works really is not going to help. 198.38.10.1 (talk) 14:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Image policy issue that might interest you

I'm always impressed by your grasp of and comments regarding image use, and thought you'd be interested in this. Though I despise the spurious means by which it came about (see the RSN) it is none the less an interesting question. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note; I probably wouldn't have seen it until tomorrow. Perhaps I'll finally get some responses to my proposal at WT:IUP. (I suppose I should go look up the RSN question, but there are so many happier ways to spend my afternoon...) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response at WT:V, which expressed my viewpoint more eloquently than I would have been able to do. All you need to know about the RS/N discussion is that it was started by Bruce Swanson. Meaning, enjoy your afternoon. :) MastCell ^Talk 00:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, my instinct to stay away from RSN proves accurate again. I had a lovely afternoon.

I encourage you to post your view at WT:V, even if it's just a simple "I agree" statement. When the community has a solid, long-standing consensus to do something sensible, we need people to 'prove it' by getting people to express support. Conversations like this are evaluated on the basis of the comments that actually show up. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Online Computer Library Center (OCLC or oclc) reference ID

By adding the Online Computer Library Center (OCLC) reference ID to a book citation provides more in depth information regarding the citation source, and where you may be best able to find a local copy to valid its use. This option so far has not been included on citation template, may be you could rectify this. The problem with isbn numbers is that thye only lead to another Wikipedia article which is really a dead end and not really useful. dolfrog (talk) 14:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, adding a OCLC number is an improvement. However, changing the ref to use a citation template is not. You can add OCLC numbers without changing the ref to a citation template.

I find the ISBN page quite helpful; I don't know why you call it a dead end. It has links to hundreds of websites, including Google books, Amazon, and many libraries. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Renaming of Dr. Jack de Sequeira

Regarding this rename done by you [2] I would like to point out that he is more commonly known as Dr. Jack de Sequeira. Most sources I came accross do not reffer to him as Joao Hugo but simply as Dr. Jack de Sequiera. As per WP:COMMONNAME the most common name should be used (just like Bill Clinton) and I think the previous name is fine. I have gone ahead and moved it back. Hope you don't mind. In case you do we can discuss this further on the talk page. Thanks. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 00:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not normally use academic titles, like "Dr Jack". I've explained the issues on the article's talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

US City Discussion Header Spam

Sorry. I thought I was being helpful to encourge new people. I edited a BUNCH of the discussion pages. Every page was different and there were a bunch that didn't have any project banner on them, so what do you want me to do? Please tell me what to change or delete, and I'll plow back through them over the next couple of days. Sbmeirow (talk) 04:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

So are you wanting me to remove the "Talk header" and line about "refs"? Sbmeirow (talk) 04:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I suggest removing the talk header if there were actually zero talk page comments (other than your own). I'd check the article to see what ref style it's using, and leave the line about refs if the article is using footnotes (which I suspect will be nearly all of them that contain any refs), and remove it only if a different style is being used.

IMO spamming the talkheader template is in the nature of a venial sin: In the future, you should use the template when appropriate; as for past mistakes, it might be worth cleaning them up -- but there might well be more important things to do, in which case you should focus on the more important work. Unnecessary talk headers can be removed whenever you're otherwise editing a talk page for a 'real' purpose, after all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Cryptozoology Invitation

File:Okapis.jpg

Have you considered joining WikiProject Cryptozoology? We are a group of editors dedicated to improving the overall quality of Wikipedia's coverage on cryptozoology. If you would like to join, simply add your name to the list of participants. Please see our list of open tasks for ideas on where to get started.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page. We look forward to working with you in the future! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gniniv (talk • contribs) 10:44, 17 July 2010

Regarding BBL

"The actual, long-term 'problem' with the article is that the beliefs and conversation that part of the trans community apparently holds about the Blanchard idea can't be supported by very many high-quality reliable sources."

That's the part I'm not so sure about. Just a short search brings up stuff like this for example. RichLow (talk) 17:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Have you read more than the abstract for that paper? Just in case you haven't, let me give you a quick summary: it's a primary source (which means that it's a relatively weak source for Wikipedia's purposes), with a sample size the author describes as "admittedly small", no control group, and (this is a really, really important issue) a brand-new, completely unvalidated "scale" made up by the author. The conclusion is basically an explanation of its significant limitations (e.g., "It is possible that autogynephilia among MTFs and natal women are different phenomena and the present inventories lack the sophistication to distinguish these differences," or "No clue if this measured what I'm claiming it measured", if you want plainer English), and one gets the impression that the primary point was to claim that Blanchard's long-term, face-to-face, in-depth interviews with MTFs suffer from the same faults as this semi-anonymous tick-the-appropriate-box one-page survey. Its scientific value, consequently, is approximately the same as those political "surveys" that end with "Can I tell Senator Whosit that he can count on your for his support?" (although I both hope and believe that it will prompt more significant studies).

Importantly, the paper doesn't address Blanchard's taxonomy (i.e., "You can divide MTFs into two groups: MTFs attracted to men, and everyone else"). Moser's paper says, basically, "I think Blanchard's second group should probably be called something like 'normal women'." It does not say that the two groups don't exist/aren't different from each other.

Having said all of that, yes, to the extent that these sources exist, Wikipedia should discuss them, in WP:DUE proportion to their acceptance by and representation in reliable secondary sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome

Heh, I love yor boxes. The whole grammar thing drives me nuts, too. As for the pic, I laughed out loud when I saw it! InFairness (talk) 21:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Another Question

Hi. I've been seeing a lot of this: [3] since I started. Do you have a copy of the vandalism template I could just copy and past and use? I went on the WP policy page that attempts to instruct how to place a warning on someone's page, and I couldn't make heads or tails of it. It's getting tiresom, and I'd like to leave a warning rather than just revert in the Sisyphean manner I've been doing...

Thanks. JS

Most editors use the 'user warning series' designed for Twinkle (a semi-automating editing tool). Under normal circumstances, you start by pasting {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} into the vandal's user talk page. If you choose one of the more serious warnings (keeping in mind that 'exciting' reactions are exactly what some immature users are after...), then you need to watch the account for a while so that you can follow up with a request at WP:ANI to have the user blocked if necessary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the usual lightening-quick response. I tried to add a message on his talk page but couldn't. Only could get to contributions page. Hmm.

Jimsteele9999 (talk) 01:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

With anons, you have to click on the "(talk)" link, because their 'user page' link is sent to the contributions. However, if you end up at the anon's Special:Contributions page, then there is a small link to the talk page at the top (under "User contributions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"). There's also a link to their block log there, which is sometimes convenient for figuring out whether the IP has been blocked before. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not

Excellent work with the above; it's turned out really well. I especially like the "Mistakes to avoid" sections. We're missing a course at the milhist Academy on reviewing GAs and your essay is just the sort of thing we're looking for. Would you mind if I used your essay as the basis for a milhist-specific course - or, though I hesitate to ask, perhaps I could commission you to produce something for us (unpaid naturally)? If not, no problem :) Best, EyeSerene^talk 14:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliments. Feel free to use it. I don't know enough about Milhist's specific issues to be the best person to write it myself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I might just transclude your essay for now, so if you notice any strange edits it's because editors are clicking the edit link on the Academy page and thinking they're editing live content there. Please rv anything unsuitable :) EyeSerene^talk 10:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

"Introductory" = "Non-technical"?

Your { {Introductory Article}} template at Boolean algebra (introduction) automatically includes "non-technical" along with "introductory." Would you say "non-technical" accurately describes that article? And if not, is there a similar template that omits "non-technical?" --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 17:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not very familiar with the templates like that; there may or may not be any such template. Overall, I don't think that the article is truly "non-technical", but I think the solution lies in making it match the template (to the extent reasonable), not making the template match the current contents of the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Croup

Hey Whatamidoing. Are there any further point to address in the review of croup? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. Are you working on a history section? (If so, I'd be happy to review that, too.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Special education

Someone on the IRC told me to come here to ask why the edit was reverted. The source was coming from a .gov site. I put quotes for the ones that were word to word from the .gov site. Hteb (talk) 20:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Requesting help with WP:SPS rewording

I have made the request to consider re wording of WP:SPS to have a more concise and simple definition. Could you please help with this?Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Self_Published_Sources_is_worded_in_a_way_which_is_too_broad

Thanks --Hfarmer (talk) 14:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look when I'm onwiki again, but unfortunately, I'm not sure that my presence would be a help. I wish you'd happened to say something before posting this, so I could have pointed you at my l-o-n-g and painful efforts to fix this earlier. The opposition boils down to a few editors who think that Coca-Cola, Inc didn't (1) write and (2) publish its own marketing materials, because the corporation employs too many lawyers. Corporate authorship is denied, and so is corporate publication. According to them, marketing and corporate websites are independently written by Copywriter Jane Smith and published by the editorially independent Marketing Director Mary Jones, with oversight and editorial control from a staff of lawyers, and that makes coca-cola.com just as properly published as a front-page news story in The New York Times.

Also, the editors worry that if a corporation can self-publish, then standard news media will be defined as self-published and therefore often unusable. It is unfortunate, but I'm not sure that it's going to be easy to fix. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Reliable or not: Robert K. G. Temple on Chinese and world history

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion on Temple's reliability here. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Scut

This is a well-known word, used in popular culture from the TV show Scrubs to MASH. Bearian (talk) 00:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is a well-known word. There are thousands and thousands of "well-known words" in the world. That a word is well-known does not mean that the word represents a notable encyclopedic concept, or that Wikipedia is a dictionary. It belongs at wikt:scut, not on the English Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Phil Taylor

Hi, I am massively involved in the Phil Taylor article and was citing references for the recent form section but was thinking that some of the references I was inserting were unneccesary because I cited every tournament. What do you think. Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk 16:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Additions like this might not be technically required, but I think that it's probably appropriate to provide these refs. It's too bad that there isn't a single source that covers all of the information.

As an alternative that's a little easier on the readers' eyes, you could consider combining all of the refs for a single sentence into one footnote at the end of that sentence. That is, instead of:

<ref>Website One, date.</ref><ref>Website Two, date.</ref>

(which produces two numbered footnotes) you'd put this:

<ref>Website One, date. Website Two, date.</ref>

(which produces a single numbered footnote with all of the relevant information) at the end of the sentence. WP:CITE gives editors wide latitude for citing information.

For general information about when inline citations are appropriate, you might like to read WP:When to cite. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, also the article is on PR so if want to review it that would be great. Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk 08:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment#Clarity:_.22When_discussion_has_ended.22

Was hoping you'd see it on your own, but I asked you a follow-up question in this thread.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 11:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/WhatamIdoing

Time you turned that link blue. Has anyone nudged you yet? SilkTork *^YES! 19:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Restaurant Notability

A formalized vote has begun regarding notability and your input is desired, thank you :) - Theornamentalist (talk) 03:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Reply

The things i listed were things i noticed right off the bat, i hadnt even read the article, italics aside it should have failed no questions asked. Its wasn't neutral, it didnt stay focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail, it had dead links, grammar, punctuation i could go on and on. I enforce almost all of WP:MOS even if it is only trying to meet GA status. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 20:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

You shouldn't "enforce almost all of MOS", because the actual criteria name exactly five of the dozens of MOS and MOS-related pages that are required, and compliance with all MOS pages except those five is strictly optional.

Just to be clear (and the risk of being offensively blunt):

The community has formally adopted some criteria for Good articles. Individual editors should not abuse the GA process by refusing GA status to an article that meets the community's criteria, but not the reviewer's personal preferences. The job of a GA reviewer is to compare the article to the community's actual requirements for GA (and to fail it if appropriate, e.g., in this case). If you don't want to do that, then I suggest that you stop reviewing GANs and join the FAC process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no negative in enforcing more criteria. I wouldnt fail an article specifically because of MOS. I failed it because of what i listed above. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 20:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is: It produces uncertainty (which secret criteria do I have to meet this time?), a significant number of disputes, and a great deal of irritation between editors. Substituting your own personal preferences for the criteria also shows disrespect for the community's criteria -- like you've decided that the real criteria aren't good enough for you, but you don't care enough to get the actual criteria improved.

I agree that it is best for articles to comply with every jot and tittle of every single policy and guideline. However, complaining about non-required issues or threatening to withhold GA status from an article that actually meets the stated criteria is inappropriate. In the case of articles with real problems (e.g., this one), it's also distracting: We need to be telling people "An article that doesn't capitalize the proper nouns is not well-written, so the article fails GA criteria #1" not "I've decided to impose extra requirements because I can." WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, im not going to argue this any longer. As i said above i wont fail an article for not following MOS, but i will tell the editors to change it. Im not going against the community for enforcing more rules, im simply trying to make the article the best it can be. Take that how you want, but theres nothing wrong with enforcing more MOS. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 21:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is: The community has told you not to do this.

It's in plain English at this guideline, where it says, "Enthusiasm in wanting an article to be the best it can be is admirable, but take care not to impose conditions for passing the article, perhaps based on your own stylistic preferences, that exceed the criteria." "Enforcing more MOS" is exactly the kind of thing that GA reviewers must not do. ("Recommend", "encourage", "educate", "explain", "fix yourself" -- sure. "Enforce", "make GA status conditional on", "demand", "insist" -- no.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you missing me stating "i will not fail an article for not fulling meeting MOS" ? Ive stated it twice. Have i in any way said this cannot become a GA because it doesnt fully follow MOS? No i havnt. So please drop this. "("Recommend", "encourage", "educate", "explain", "fix yourself" -- sure. "Enforce", "make GA status conditional on", "demand", "insist" -- no.)"....Do i demand it? Nope. Do i tell you whats wrong and you should fix it? Yes. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 21:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I know that you have said (here) that you won't fail an article over MOS problems. But you are not communicating that to the editors at the articles you're reviewing. Your "suggestions" very frequently come across as imposing extra requirements. For example, 100% of your four excuses for quick-failing this article are made-up requirements of your own choosing -- completely made-up, in some cases: There simply are no rules that prohibit articles from having images that are 301x300 pixels.

We cannot reasonably expect every editors to guess that when you complain about the incorrect use of italics, that this is merely an optional suggestion, especially when you don't mention any of the real problems (most of which seem to have been fixed now). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, Images bigger then 300. Please read MOS:IMAGES "Lead images, which should usually be no wider than "300px". ("upright=1.35"). Dead links are 100% reason to fail the article because it then violates GA criteria 2. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 22:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

You don't seem to quite grasp what the word "usually" means. "Usually" does not mean "If it's 301 pixels wide, you flunk GA." It means, instead, that most of the time, this is a good size. (Other image-related advice specifies 400 or 500 pixels as a reasonable maximum size.) In fact, GA does not care what size the images are: Compliance with MOS:IMAGES is absolutely optional for GA purposes.

And there's nothing at all in GA 2 that prohibits the presence of dead URLs. In fact, editors are directed to retain these links per WP:LINKROT and WP:CITE. "It's not easily available online" is not the same as "This statement is unverifiable". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Boiling point

You wrote: "Surely editors commenting here, if given a choice, would prefer to source basic scientific facts (e.g., the temperature at which water boils, the distance from the Earth to the sun) to a science textbook or a good secondary source in a peer-reviewed journal than to a local newspaper or a random website."

But that would be unfair to the handful of people who believe that water boils at 200 C, and whose views are suppressed by the orthodox scientific establishment. If the 200C'ers are able to enlist a sympathetic journalist, then who are we to prioritize the peer-reviewed scientific literature over a back issue of Contrarian Weekly? That would be SPOV-pushing. And after all, scientists do grant-funded research predicated on the claim that water boils at 100 C, so they have an obvious conflict of interest here, one that can only be resolved and balanced by impartial and omniscient journalists.

Oy. I think I have been active at this site for too long. I seem to have passed my sell-by date. :P MastCell ^Talk 21:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

So long as you stay here and finish rotting with the rest of us, it's okay with me if you've passed your sell-by date. ;-)

When I have a particularly frustrating day, I sometimes stop by your user page to remind myself how much worse it could be. BTW, I was happy to see the reappearance of the quotations, but I think that it's missing something vaguely fatalistic from Ecclesiastes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

In the category of things to avoid: A couple of people at WT:V are trying to gut WP:PAYWALL by "encouraging" editors to find and cite a second, free (as in "free beer") online source whenever they use a reliable source that isn't freely available to editors online.

You know the argument: Information in a top-quality peer-reviewed journal article isn't "verifiable" if I can't read it right this minute for free, and editors at Schizophrenia surely have nothing better to do than to check through all 217 of those refs to see which ones aren't free-beer-online sources, and provide a second free-beer-online source to support the statement. After all, it won't hurt anyone to have three or four hundred refs in that article, and it'll take the poor editors at that article no time at all to find suitable free-beer sources.

You also know what will happen: They'll pound on the table and say this is merely an "extra addled bonus", strictly optional, just a minor encouragement -- and people like the editor in the section above will decide that it's an absolute rule to be required for every article.

I don't think it will fly in the end, but the arguments make my skin itch, particularly in the context of The New York Times providing us with such a dramatic example of why editors should avoid the popular press for medical information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the proposal is well-intentioned (specifically, NuclearWarfare is a smart and clueful editor). The problem is that it's not that realistic to think that there will be two entirely equivalent sources which differ only in their availability. I'm spoiled, because I have an academic library at my service, so if I can't find an article myself I can ask a librarian to pull it for me. I can understand that it must be frustrating for people without easy access to feel locked out of verifying material.

That said, I agree with you about the reasons why this is a bad idea. We can't really have our sourcing dictated by I-need-to-find-it-free-and-online-right-now, not if we take seriously the goal of creating a serious, respectable reference work. It's harsh, but if people want to see some of these sources, then they need to go to their library and get them. If they can't, then there are usually people willing to provide a copy.

Sad experience leads me to agree that while the free-source idea is phrased as a suggestion, it will be interpreted as a requirement by some of our less clueful fellow editors. Relying on the common sense of your fellow Wikipedians is a shortcut to an ulcer. MastCell ^Talk 04:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

What do you suggest.....

What if someone has already been dignosed with depression? they are taking their meds, and they arent seeing any results?

please respond on this page: User:Cutter598201 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cutter598201 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that such people talk to their physicians about their concerns. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Viewing a list of GA pages for our project

We have this list [4] which gives us the talk pages for the GAs. Anyway we can list the GA articles rather than the talk pages? I am going to go through them again to verify no vandalism has occur ed and it is faster if I can go directly to the article.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I've been thinking about that recently. If the cat listed the articles (rather than the talk pages), then Special:RelatedChanges would show recent changes to the articles (rather than recent changes to the talk pages). In the meantime, you can use the manually created list below. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I have added the revision history to each of the disease entities hereUser:Jmh649/Medical GAs. Are you still keeping this list uptodate or how did you generate it?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I created it by hand, using a simple search-and-replace feature in a text editor: Paste the list of talk pages into a document, replace all "Talk:" with "* [[" and insert "]]" at the end of each line. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Pedophilia tags

Are you a part of the Pedophilia project? Based on your own criteria members of the pedophilia project are the "final arbiters" of what articles pertain to it. If you are part of the pedophila project I apologize for removing your pedophilia tag in the Parental alienation syndrome article. I did look at your user page for a pedophilia project userbox but didn't see one (though I suppose you could be a closet pedophilia project member.) If you are not a member you are not "final arbiter" either and you have reverted my good faith edit of removing the pedophilia tag from an article that clearly has nothing to do with pedophilia. I have said about as much on the talk page as well. And, in answer to your question, no I will not be re-adding the Pedophilia tag to the article. If you would like to re-tag it as belonging to the project and are not a closet pedophilia watch member with "final arbiter" authority, I ask that you verify it belongs there with someone who is since it runs counter to Wikipedia:Common Sense.--Cybermud (talk) 04:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Nope, I'm not a member of the WP:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch. But I went to the trouble of figuring out who originally added that tag, and he is one of the most active members for the project. So it's already been "verified" by a member of the project.

BTW, since you seem a little uncertain, PAW's primary purpose seems to be to keep pedophilia advocacy out of Wikipedia. They're the good guys, not the bad guys. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I will ask the user who added the tag about it. I suspect he added it around the time some of the article's editors were discussing pedophilia claims about the subjects originator (since the tagging and those edits were both in 2008) even the article specifically about the psychologist in question is not tagged PAW.--Cybermud (talk) 04:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

And, BTW, on articles with this many tags at the top, it's normal to collapse the WP tags inside of {{WPBS}}. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

page numbers

Please see Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Page numbers -- PBS (talk) 12:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Rudeness/Editnotice

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC) I don't think it's necessary to template you (twinkle did it for me, sorry); it looks like the edit notice didn't work. I've never seen an edit notice on an article so I'm not even sure if this is possible, but I don't think this belongs in mainspace, anyway. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it should be deleted. I was trying to figure out the WP:Editnotice process. It appears to be possible, but complicated, and will require admin intervention. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I've moved it to the correct location Template:Editnotices/Page/Rudeness. Hope this helps — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal

You are receiving this because you have commented on either Autogynephilia, Homosexual transsexual, or Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory in the past two years; all such commenters have received this notice. It has been proposed to merge these three articles to eliminate WP:Redundancy, WP:UNDUE, WP:POV, and to keep the focus on the specific Blanchardian theory of M2F transsexuality (in contrast to Transsexual sexuality, which would be to focus on the subject in general). Please feel free to comment on the proposal at Talk:Autogynephilia#Merger proposal. -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 19:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

After much as you predicted fruitless discussion everything has boiled down to a Poll. straw Poll on the merger proposals. Since you have shown some active interest in this recently I am notifying you of this. Sincerely, have a nice weekend. --Hfarmer (talk) 00:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

JFW | T@lk 09:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

An opinion? (if possible)

I read your commentary of the Wikipedia images section and I was wondering about the chance of getting your opinion on a photo [5] I had uploaded. If you have the time and are willing, of course. The image was used in the Hal Block article, but was removed when I put the article up for FAC. I'm not concerned about the FAC now, but more that I feel the image is crucial to the article. The editor removed it because "sure, talk about that point in his career and the meeting, but we most certainly do not need a non-free image to illustrate the fact" and "Yes, he met Patton. Great, talk about it. We don't need a non-free image... What the meeting looked like is not important." To me it seems like that argument could be used to remove almost every image on Wikipedia. I'm not asking you to get in the middle of our disagreement, but I would be appreciative of any opinion. I completely understand, if you don't wish to assist. Thanks, BashBrannigan (talk) 01:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why you think this image is "crucial" to the article. Do you believe that the reader will be unable to understand the two simple sentences about Block being introduced to Patton unless these sentences are reinforced by an image? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I greatly appreciate getting another opinion. Although I honestly can't say I still understand all the issues involved, I'm not going to oppose the removal of the photo. Thanks! BashBrannigan (talk) 23:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I replied to your Bronx RfC comment on my talk page

So feel free to delete this section. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I followed your advice and reinserted a short question on the Bronx Talk page; seems to register at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography —— Shakescene (talk) 03:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Your suggestion on new page patrol

Thanks for your suggestion which shows you understood my comment about a new user's response to a canned AfD message. I took your suggestion, reviewed a couple of articles, and will try to check out a few each week. I do take greatest pride in creating new articles, though, which I believe are still needed. I find many subjects uncovered, and many articles that do exist to be weak and thin. So creating and improving content will probably remain my favorite Wikipedia activities. I do appreciate your input. Thanks again. Cullen328 (talk) 05:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Web presence

Template:Web presence has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. 68.35.13.81 (talk) 23:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Movement of urban contemporary gospel article

You moved an article that have previously been moved. If you note on the article's talk page this article had been previously moved after much discussion by the Christian music Wikiproject. It has been moved 3 times and returned to urban contemporary gospel. Please revert your edits and if you feel there is a better justification for the movement than what has been previously discussed please post your thoughts on the Christian Music Wikiproject. Thank you. -- Absolon S. Kent ^(chat), 19:00, Wednesday July 21, 2010 (UTC)

If the Christian Music WikiProject believes that people who have been dead (in some cases) for eighty years represent "contemporary" music in any fashion (which I doubt), then I suggest that they consider the dictionary definition of that word.

The old article, as written, was not actually about "urban contemporary gospel", no matter what it's name was. This should be perfectly obvious to anyone that actually reads the sourced content of the new article that now (and properly) belongs at urban contemporary gospel. These are the two facts that I need you to understand:

Charles A. Tindley and Kirk Franklin do not have the same musical style. They have different musical styles. Consequently, they need to be in different articles.
The style described in the article needs to match the title at the top of the article. WP:Article titles does not support hiding a description of Tindley's music under Franklin's title, or Franklin's music under a title for Tindley's music. The page's contents need to match the title.

To put it another way: If you think Charles Tindley, who died in 1933, is a representative artist for "urban contemporary gospel" (despite exactly zero sources saying anything even remotely like this), then what exactly would you call the article about Kirk Franklin and Yolanda Adams? "Very, very, very contemporary gospel"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Merger of Feminine essence concept of transsexuality with Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory

It has been proposed on the talk page of Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory the article Feminine essence concept of transsexuality has been proposed for merger with Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory. [Since you edited this article heavily] I thought it would be considerate to alert you to this. --Hfarmer (talk) 23:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I haven't even had time to read through the results of the previous merge yet. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Questions about pestology

I am having a hard time finding reliable resources stating what pestology is. It must be more unofficial than I thought. In my industry, scientists and specialists focus on the more popular -ists, like entomologists, chemists, and pathologists.

Should I include that it is an unofficial term, since I cannot find viable resources?

Thank you for your help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nocturnalnights (talk • contribs) 15:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

If you can't find any sources at all, then it probably shouldn't be in Wikipedia at all, because the rules are that you have to be able to WP:Verify the information. However, there seem to be at least a few sources, like this dictionary entry. You might try searching at books.google.com to see if there are any others.

If there's very little information in the sources (for example, enough to write a definition, but not enough to write a full article), then one option is to merge this information into the most closely related article (for example, to make this be a paragraph in Entomology rather than a tiny article by itself). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Clarification on what you mean

Hey, WhatamIdoing, before I respond to you at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy), I'm so confused that I'm not sure what you mean, you said "Why do you say that we must assume that a newbie who creates an article about a non-notable subject is acting in bad faith?" but I don't know where I said that (or even implied it) so I'm not sure I understand your message. Could you help me out a bit? -- CáliKewlKid (talk) 06:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Or I could actually reread my whole posting... sorry. I think I understand now -- CáliKewlKid (talk) 07:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Popular pages

Hello, WhatamIdoing. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Essays#Popular_pages.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

5P and Jimbo

I asked on Jimbo's talk page what he, as a regular editor and as the Founder of Wikipedia, personally thought about the role of the WP:5P. I figured he'd be diplomatic and have a middle of the road belief between that of actual policy and that of "nice essay". I was quite surprised when his response was along the the lines of core policy and his analogy to British constitutional law. I still believe the position you have been stating is representative of the majority of Wikipedians, but it makes the argument that "this page is confusing editors, especially newbies, into thinking it is policy" is hard to push when Jimbo himself believes it to be policy. How do you say that the founder of Wikipedia "is wrong" about something like this? I of course do not change my opinion of the 5P but it does knock the fight out of me to know that if Jimbo can think the 5P is fundamental policy then how can we expect newbies to understand the role of the 5P as something less than what he thinks they are...Camelbinky (talk) 22:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

sandbox sources draft

I think that's starting to capture the differences between sources. I disagree to a small amount on how you're defining secondary source though that's a close-enough capture and stark enough from the first/third party designation. (FYI, the way I see primary vs secondary is the amount of transformation that is done to the material; the original work and non-interpretive recaps, such as would be published as news stories, are primary, while analysis, critique, and other factors would make the work secondary, but that's not critical to what you are writing). --MASEM (t) 23:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've been thinking about this, and I'm not sure that it exactly matters for this purpose.

However, IMO your example here is imperfect, because feature-length news stories very frequently re-interpret original work and provide analysis. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your invitation to contribute on WikiProject Medicine. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by InterestedPer (talk • contribs) 20:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

RFC comment

The problem we have is the myriad of articles like Charlie Harper (Two and a Half Men), which uses a one statement about an Emmy award and one line about the character's car to justify a large article consisting of items derived from the plot of the show. That is not an article which is based on reliable, independent (third-party) sources. I agree that your example can come up in theory, but even then, it would be unacceptable to base an article solely on a single police report. By the time there are multiple independent sources there are, in practice, some secondary sources. Cases where the sourcing consists of multiple sources that are all primary sources yet are independent of the topic don't occur in practice.—Kww(talk) 06:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I dislike such articles. However, there are two reliable, independent, third-party sources named as inline citations in that article. Both of them are also secondary sources (according to Wikipedia's definition).

But my bigger concern is your sloppy use of the terms. You say that WP:V's requirement for third-party sources actually, directly "means" that primary sources can't be the basis of an article's contents. Well -- the fact is, it doesn't say that. If WP:V actually meant "secondary", it would have directly said "secondary".

And my opinion about this situation is, if you can't see why your statement is factually inaccurate, and/or how spreading that kind of misinformation creates problems for Wikipedia, then you have no business trying to teach Gavin anything. He's already struggling with this, and telling him the wrong answers is only going to make things worse. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

If you ever dealt with Hiding, you would know that when he says "primary sources", he means "fictional work". "Disliking" such articles really isn't the point: primary or not, that article is not based on reliable, independent (third-party) sources. It is based on the plot of the work, with two independent sources used to source a trivial subset of the article in an effort to bypass WP:N. You argue with the meaning of "should" vs "must", but seem to allow "based" to mean "make trivial references to". I fully understand the different between "primary" and "secondary". Since you insist, I will make the distinction in the RFC.—Kww(talk) 18:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

That the article appears to be "based on" first-party, primary sources could indicate nothing more than the article being incomplete (or badly edited, where "good editing" refers to the subset of good editing called "removing trivia and garbage"). That is, there might be a WP:DUE violation, even though everything on the page is (presumably) verifiable.

I will look forward to seeing your clarified text at the RFC. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it's a WP:NOT#PLOT violation, as the plot summary of Two and a Half Men is not "concise", and the independently sourced information in the article is already present in Charlie Sheen. It was split improperly, but, as usual, fans interpret all guidelines in a fashion which allow such articles to be kept.—Kww(talk) 18:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Who vs. That

Using "that" where a personal pronoun is called for may be "well established in older English," but that is no reason for recommending it. When you refer to a person, use a PERSONal pronoun. There is no reason for sticking to archaic usage. There may be two options, both grammatically correct. In this case, use what is preferred. And a little less pretentiousness wouldn't do you any harm, when you tell people that they "might want to read" your scribblings "before making any stylistic changes." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Briantw (talk • contribs) 23:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know that your personal opinion is that "who" should be used whenever referring to humans. However, your personal opinion is not actually the arbiter of proper grammar. If you don't want to read my "scribblings", then perhaps you'd like to read English relative clauses#That_and_which, or a majority of the academic style books published in English during the last century or two.

What I want you to remember is that the use of "that" to refer to a human is not actually wrong, and per WP:ENGVAR, you should not change articles from the existing style to your personally preferred style. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Your offer to merge

You asked for it you got it Toyota. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Done WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Consensus

Hello, WhatamIdoing. You have new messages at Kumioko's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Who is Darlie?

You seem to have recognized someone behind that IP... Probably not Darlie. Tijfo098 (talk)

User:DarlieB is an on-again/off-again editor who supposedly left last year after a string of blocks for edit warring (but you know what good-bye means in Wikiland, right?).

I have the impression that Darlie is an acquaintance of Jokestress (or perhaps "fan" would be a better description). At any rate, the linguistic style is easy to recognize, and Darlie is pretty much the only person who believes that Jokestress' lengthy attack on Bailey's family was entirely made up of direct quotations from The Man Who Would Be Queen.

BTW, if you haven't read the entire Dreger piece about the scandal, then I really think you should. It's PMID 18431641, available free here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The Encephalon Cross

About time you got one of these. -- Colin°^Talk 20:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Village pump (policy)

I don't get why people are criticizing me. The purpose of the policy page would seem to be to get advice on policy. I'm sorry, but if the talk page of the article is unlikely to be seen, all that other stuff is just too confusing.

I wasn't even aware of that list of noticeboards but it's like I'm a newbie all over again.

The only solution would be to not even attempt to solve problems. Or when I'm the one potentially violating policy, to go ahead and violate whatever it is I'm violating and wait for someone to yell at me.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 15:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I realize that it's confusing, but the purpose of the Village Pump policy page isn't to get advice on how to apply existing policies to articles: its purpose is to get comments on changing policies.

In my experience, about half the WP:Noticeboards are responsive. The other half, it's kind of hit or miss. But the good news is that people at least won't be yelling at you for posting a honest question (although they might tell you to move the question to a different noticeboard, if they think another is more appropriate). When it looks like the article is neglected, my own rule of thumb is to take policy-type questions to a noticeboard, and content-dependent questions to a WikiProject. Or, we're supposed to WP:Be bold, and sometimes risking a mistake is the right choice.

(Now if you and I think Wikipedia is complicated, just imagine what a brand-new editor is thinking.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Believe me, it was worse then. I remember my first attempt at getting an article fixed on the Help Desk. At the time, I wasn't about to edit Wikipedia myself. 10,000 edits later, I still don't know what I'm doing if I run into a problem. Figuring out that I should go to the noticeboards is one thing but figuring out which one is another matter entirely.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 23:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia can certainly be not just complicated, but overly complicated. And if you add to that some of the various personalities and POV-pushers involved, then it's a wonder that anything ever gets done at all.

Some aspects are helpful: If you've got a question about an external link, in the ==External links== section, and never-ever-ever being used to support a single sentence of article content, then you can send the problem off to WP:External links/Noticeboard, and be reasonably confident that you'll get a relevant response from someone who knows what the relevant guideline says. But for other things... It's like what they used to say about helicopters: it doesn't work in theory, but it somehow seems to fly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Popular WikiProjects

Please see Wikipedia talk:Database reports#Popular WikiProjects (permanent link here).
(Your talk page is on my watchlist, and I will watch for your reply here.)
—Wavelength (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Cool! I'll leave a note at WT:COUNCIL. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Intellectual disability

Please consider commenting at Talk:Intellectual disability regarding my edit. Thanks My76 Strat 12:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Origami

If you don't like a gallery in something as visual as origami then why can't you tag it first rather than just removing the gallery? Dmcq (talk) 00:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Because we're supposed to WP:Be bold.

It's possible that something useful and appropriate could be done with an gallery in that article, but four unexplained images isn't it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice

I've reported Special:Contributions/98.149.114.34 to ANI. You were engaged in discussion with this user at Talk:The Man Who Would Be Queen, so I thought I should notify you of this. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "incident" you were trying to report. There's no rule against a vanished user editing as an IP, and POV pushing at this level is usually handled through other venues.

There are many problems with the version currently posted (e.g., the Times article was about the book and the scandal, not about Dreger's paper), but I don't think that ANI was the best approach. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll let the slow churning edit war go on then. Have fun (without me). Tijfo098 (talk) 20:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you're feeling frustrated. Speaking for myself, I'd rather have you involved in that article than not.

Part of the problem may be the long life of this dispute. A couple of POV pushers in these articles have been reported so many times, and nothing ever gets solved, so perhaps the community doesn't care or has given up. I don't know if that's because the subject isn't interesting to the average editor, or if opposing POV pushing by a transwoman proves that you're not a sufficiently anti-transphobic person, or because there are bigger fish to fry, or because of a sort of voter fatigue, but in my experience, only hugely obvious and direct violations of the exact wording of a policy get any attention when those articles are concerned. Everythiing else gets "wrong forum, somebody else's problem." WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)