User Talk: WhatamIdoing

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

{{bots|deny=DPL bot,KiranBOT|optout=cs1-errors}}

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

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

{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo = old(60d)
| archive = User talk:WhatamIdoing/Archive %(counter)d
| counter = 27
| maxarchivesize = 250K
| minthreadstoarchive = 4
| minthreadsleft = 6
}}

{{archive box|auto=yes}}

LLM guideline

Hi, thoughts on Wikipedia:Writing articles with large language models/March 2026 proposal ↗? There's some discussion on its talk and at WT:AIC#AI-bot on ANI ↗ Kowal2701 (talk, contribs ↗) 23:37, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

:Idea for an explanatory essay on NPOV: User:Kowal2701/Due and undue (perhaps the target of WP:DUE ↗ and WP:UNDUE ↗ if/when in project space). Something we discussed a while back that’s been bugging me, is that people cite WP:DUE ↗ which points to WEIGHT, when really they mean WP:BALASP ↗. Was thinking this’d clear up any confusion and make life easier for newbies Kowal2701 (talk, contribs ↗) 02:29, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
::Is the intended content something like "When editors say DUE, they don't always mean exactly that?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:20, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
:::Sort of, but that premise wouldn't make sense if DUE pointed to it. I'm unsure what to actually put in the sections that doesn't just duplicate the policy (other than giving lots of examples). It could just serve as a disambiguation page for DUE and UNDUE (something like this) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs ↗) 19:27, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
::::The general direction that we're heading in at NPOV is to split "viewpoint" from "basic information" into separate concepts (DUE vs BALASP, basically). Getting there will take a couple of years, but we've made a start. The weak point in NPOV that we've been addressing during the last year or so is the bit I call "write an encyclopedia article". By this, I mean that there are certain basic facts about the subject that are conventionally presented in an encyclopedia article, and these should have a place even if the reliable sources spend relatively little time talking about them. The second (and fairly new) paragraph at WP:BALASP ↗ is an effort to address this gap in our advice. I think that as we build that section to be useful, and give editors enough time (years, not weeks) to discover it, then the BALASP shortcut might become better known. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:23, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::That makes a lot of sense, BALASP looks much better. It seems closely related to MOS. I would've thought a complete split would be best eventually, and then mention the overlap (like with WP:VERIFYOR ↗). In the meantime I can add a {{tl|Redirect}} hatnote to DUE Kowal2701 (talk, contribs ↗) 20:59, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::might be interested in WP:PAGSFIRST ↗, think I've seen you say something similar Kowal2701 (talk, contribs ↗) 10:00, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::Yes, your new page summarizes a very human tendency. Thanks for sharing the link. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:43, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::"generally un/reliable" --> "usually un/reliable"? "usually" conveys usage and gets people reflexively thinking about context. One issue, and it's a very big one: the shortcuts would be ugly Kowal2701 (talk, contribs ↗) 19:42, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
::::::::What I like about "usually" is that it disrupts the "WP:GREL ↗" thinking. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:46, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::Agreed. Maybe something we could tie in with the rework of RSP? The GREL etc. redirects could still work, but the anchors and shortcuts changed to "usually X" and UREL and UUNREL (ew)? I could propose it at VPI or WT:RSP, but it'd probably be one of those things that gets a few murmurs and then archived Kowal2701 (talk, contribs ↗) 21:01, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::I'm less certain about agreement. People dislike changing jargon. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:21, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::yeah, that's why I thought it'd be better to tie it into another transformative change. But I may just suggest it at WT:RSP, that crowd seems thoughtful, and it's such a low-effort/trivial change Kowal2701 (talk, contribs ↗) 21:56, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::@Mathglot, what do you think? Would the English Wikipedia be better if we changed "GREL" to "usually reliable", etc.? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:30, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::: A couple of thoughts. First, the term, as well as the abbreviation for it, were chosen before the time I became heavily involved at RSP. Regardless, I would be loathe to change a phrase that may have come out of consensus. We may need some archive archaeology (archiveology?) to determine if that was even the case, or whether some template writer had to call it something, ended up calling it that without much thought and it stuck (or at least, no one objected, or there were bigger fish to fry, etc.).
::::::::::::: Even though it would be easy to change it now, it is really no easi{{smallcaps|er}}, as the 'gr' is emitted by template in the table rows in the RSP table, and the longer form—whatever it is—will be emitted by template under the new system, so changing it later when we have 500+ landing source pages will be a matter of changing a couple of words in a single template (i.e., trivial).
::::::::::::: Because the change from the current system to the new one is large, my inclination is to keep the adjustment for users to the very minimum, i.e., just do the changes that are forced upon us by the situation, and deal with other nice-to-have enhancements as separate issues after we are live with the new system. We could either just keep a list somewhere and remember to come back to it, but there is also a Phabricator project for doing the conversion at {{Phab|T414382}}, and one task is {{Phab|T414754}} "RSP post-cutover cleanup", and this could be added under it T414382 as a sub-task if desired. But this subdiscussion would be better held there, to encourage other opinions. Mathglot (talk) 02:47, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::::I'm pretty sure that nothing about RSP's early days was discussed thoroughly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:27, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
{{od}}{{anchor|15:43, 8 May}} Lmk if this is dumb/too ambitious. Similar to the direction RSP is taking, Wikipedia:Reliable sources ↗ should be changed to Wikipedia:Source reliability ↗ and rewritten so that WP:CONTEXTMATTERS ↗ isn’t just an addendum but the basis. Like "reliable source" should always be written as "source reliable for the claim", and there should be more guidance on the different contexts. The good thing about the status quo is that it clearly relegates some sources as unreliable for literally everything bar their own content, but this could still be covered in the lead re "reputation for fact-checking", USERGEN etc. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs ↗) 15:43, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

:I think it's a good concept, but it's a big job. What's the smallest step you could take now towards that goal? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:57, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
::Talking to you :) Can do a rough mock-up at some point and fly it past people at WP:WPPAG ↗ for them to possibly take over Kowal2701 (talk, contribs ↗) 16:43, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
:::Then congratulations: you're already on the path towards improving that guideline!
:::I suggest confining the rough mock-up to a single part of the guideline for now. Wholesale replacement of any guideline is extremely unusual, so I think that you want to give a solid example but still limit how much effort you're putting into it at this stage. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:54, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
::::User:Kowal/Mockup re Source reliability is roughly what I have in mind Kowal2701 (talk, contribs ↗) 12:36, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::WP:SOURCEDEF ↗ would have to be changed in coordination with WP:SOURCE ↗.
:::::{{anchor|16:48, 10 May}} It looks like you're planning to rearrange things. This is usually possible, and I suggest doing it first, to make future diffs easier to understand. WP:RS is kind of disorganized right now, so a proposal to rearrange without changing the text might be welcome. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:48, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
::::::Thank you, good idea. It sort of depends on people being bold afterwards since carbon copies of the current sections may not make much sense in the/a new structure. I could start a discussion at WT:RS and notify WP:WPPAG, and probably WP:VPP if that goes down well Kowal2701 (talk, contribs ↗) 18:42, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::::And WT:V, because some changes would have to be coordinated with that policy. But think about it as a series of baby steps: anything helpful that moves a page in the right direction is good, even if it's small. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:20, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
::::::::btw, ik Jimmy's views are often taken w a pinch of salt (and I often despair w him), but see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#c-Jimbo_Wales-20260624112700-Kowal2701-20260623163500 ↗. I'll obv ultimately defer to you re the RfC process, but imo reform is desperately needed Kowal2701 (talk, contribs ↗) 11:32, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::Well, "the proliferation of RfCs" is a factual claim, and it's either right or wrong. We should probably check whether the data supports it. I suspect that 2025 had fewer RFCs than five years before, or ten years before. User:BilledMammal/List of RFCs was one attempt to get a count. But perhaps what was meant wasn't the number of RFCs, but instead the use of RFCs to issue a one-time broad judgement about news outlets. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:40, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::I think he was mostly referring to RfCs in CTOPs, basically stuff like Talk:Zionism RfC ↗ (but he's wrong RfCs circumvent the community, they do the opposite, it's just that people avoid them because of lack of time, drama, or lack of relevant expertise). I'm at a loss with how to prevent RfC norms reinforcing battlegroundy, entrenched disputes if it isn't something along the lines of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment#c-Kowal2701-20260623163300-Kowal2701-20260623162800 ↗. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs ↗) 21:16, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::Set aside the idea of an RFC for a moment. How do you prevent any ordinary but potentially large discussion (e.g., at WP:RSN ↗ or WP:VPPR ↗) from "reinforcing battlegroundy, entrenched disputes"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::if involved, keep it informal and take the grains of merit from the various positions to make an informal proposal, and start consensus building by iterating on feedback. But that needs someone leading it, and that's a time-intensive, thankless job. For disputes over, say, an infobox parameter or a label, imo there's no way to prevent entrenchment because of the discrete, often-binary options. Really we should be eschewing such controversial essentialism that takes up so much community time, but that won't happen and readers like simplicity Kowal2701 (talk, contribs ↗) 22:06, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::So if you needed start such a discussion, and you were thinking about the best way to handle it, you'd try to:
:::::::::::::* Keep informal. Maybe this looks like: No big 'structure' like having a separate section for voting-style responses, no pre-planned list of !voting choices, no suggestion of counting heads, etc.
:::::::::::::* Shepherd the discussion, without bludgeoning it. (I agree with you that this is time-intensive, but in my experience, it's not always thankless.)
:::::::::::::* Avoid discrete and binary options. As you say, some choices are fundamentally binary (an image/infobox/whatever is either in the article or it's not), but we shouldn't encourage that, and we certainly shouldn't be pushing for discrete or binary choices when the decision isn't naturally binary (e.g., there are many ways to write a first sentence, so voting for Option A vs Option B is not appropriate).
:::::::::::::Does that sound about right? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:18, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Yes thanks, but it'd be a bit like trying to find a designated driver ↗ lol (benefit would be that uncompromising partisans stick out more) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs ↗) 22:29, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Consider Valereee's efforts at Talk:Sexual and gender-based violence in the October 7 attacks#Reportedly in lead ↗ Kowal2701 (talk, contribs ↗) 22:35, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::As one of the obvious designated drivers in my circles (since I don't drink), it seems obvious to me that it's possible to find such a person, and often not as hard as we think it might be.
:::::::::::::::I am of course a paid-up member of the Valereee fan club, and I like the approach she took in that discussion. But mostly what I want to suggest is that your proposal for the WP:RFC ↗ page is the opposite of what you say here that you want. Here, you say that you don't want "discrete, often-binary options"; over there, you recommend that RFCs have "clear discrete options".
:::::::::::::::An RFC is just an advertising mechanism for a discussion. If "discrete, often-binary options" are bad for discussions or for resolving disputes, then they're bad for discussions and for resolving disputes when the discussion or dispute has been advertised through the RFC process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:47, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::(Also, WP:WTW ↗ should probably get a note about allegedly and reportedly, preferably with a sentence that explains that "The news outlet reported X on Tuesday" is dry facts, but "X reportedly happened on Tuesday" suggests uncertainty. The word ''reportedly'' is added to indicate that we don't actually know this; instead, we have only read a claim about it.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:54, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Agreed, but it's more that the norm for RfCs is to distill a complex issue into discrete 'ideal' options, and norms are incredibly difficult to change. That's why I thought pivoting to a different process might be easier, and notifying noticeboards like WP:NPOVN ↗ sort of already serves as what we describe above (though saying that, I couldn't find a good example in a short search, sometimes it is just canvassing since people know the views of its regulars) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs ↗) 23:09, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::Well, I (unintentionally) changed that norm once, so I'm pretty sure we could change it back. That would require more education, particularly for FRS members (some of whom complain if responding to an RFC requires them to do more than pick an option out of a list) and RFC starters (because the RFC feels important to them, so they want to make it as structured and formal-feeling as possible). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:04, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::we would probably need some textbook examples of this to point to (ie. of it working), meaning we'd need to somewhat manufacture/lead them Kowal2701 (talk, contribs ↗) 22:33, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::I was thinking that we could start by gently encouraging the few people who say things like "An RFC is supposed to list specific options" or "Bad RFC" on similar grounds to try to solve the dispute instead of complaining about the style of the question. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:19, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::Yeah, I'll try to keep an eye on WP:RFC/A ↗, and for disputes heading towards an RfC. One for the backburner I guess Kowal2701 (talk, contribs ↗) 21:02, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
:alright, this one's hopelessly naive and unrealistic, but Wikipedia:Civility ↗ --> Wikipedia:Collegiality ↗. "civility" places too much emphasis on superficial politeness which is easily gamed, but is obv much easier to enforce and less cumbersome to follow since it's just sanctioning people for insults. Though "collegiality" would be so much better as a pillar ↗ or principle imo. I know there's a widespread perception among older users that collegiality's been on the decline for ages ({{noping|JarrahTree}} told me so shortly before he passed), perhaps an easier solution is to make WP:COLLEGIALITY an essay, idk Kowal2701 (talk, contribs ↗) 14:43, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
::I like the idea of starting with an essay.
::One of the things that I like about ''civility'' is that it's related to civitas ↗, and thus it's actions that build up the community rather than harming it.
::One of the things that I think is confusing (to Americans, at least), is that we're not very familiar with the concept of "cold civility". We think that if someone is not friendly and approving, then they're being uncivil. Jack Prelutsky ↗ wrote a poem "To a Gentleman I Dislike" that runs like this:
:::I give you, sir,
:::The time of day,
:::But just to speed you
:::On your way.
::The poem describes a civil behavior (answering a reasonable question), but it doesn't describe a warm or friendly interaction.
::What's missing from the concept of civility that collegiality would include is working together towards a common goal. We need editors who will fix each others' mistakes, and what we mostly have is editors who revert imperfect edits without helping. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:04, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
::: O/t: Searching for it ↗ returned, to my surprise, almost entirely results about Chaucer. This may be page rank ↗ rearing its ugly head, but I wonder if Chaucer addressed the topic as well? Certainly seems like a topic he might have broached, though not in those exact words. Interestingly, the Poetry Foundation does not have it ↗. Perhaps it is still under copyright. Mathglot (talk) 19:22, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
::::The author is still alive, so it's almost certainly under copyright. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:46, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
:::Yes, "cold civility" is incredibly English, like the bare minimum to maintain cordial relations (people are just reserved and value their own privacy, it's still friendly in a way). Honestly, "civility" makes me think of civilising mission ↗ and old-fashioned, high-culture ↗, snobby rhetoric, but I’m sure I’m in the tiny minority there wrt the former. I agree it needs to be more about underlying attitudes and supporting one another. Do you know of any old hands who would be great at writing such an essay? (other than yourself :)) I’m thinking it could be summarised a little at WP:CIVILITY (explaining rather than as a rule, w advice on how to collegially deal with personal dislikes) and mentioned at WP:5P Kowal2701 (talk, contribs ↗) 20:47, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Mock-ups, diffs, and comparisons

{{Courtesy link|User:Kowal/Mockup re Source reliability}}
{{Hatnote|This is in response to commentary at {{slink||15:43, 8 May}} above.}}

In thinking about how to present such ideas for change, the mechanics of it and the tools available (such as WP:Diff ↗) can play a large part in an efficient discussion, and even run it off the rails if not done right. In particular, iirc, I think Waid already alluded ↗ to possible downside of wholesale change in mock-ups due to drawbacks with Diff, and this should not be underestimated for its potential to sink a large proposal due to the difficulty of viewing exactly what changes are being proposed.

{{u|Kowal2701}}, to be clear, I am not discussing here the pros or cons of any of your suggestions or ideas, but solely how to use what tools we have to frame what you have in such a way as to illustrate as clearly and simply as possible exactly what it is that you are proposing. There is more than one way to do this.
{{wiktionary|mock-up}}
First, a word about terminology. To me, User:Kowal/Mockup re Source reliability is not (yet) a mock-up; it is more of a plan, or outline. A mock-up is pretty much fully formed, perhaps lacking some working parts. (A mock-up of a new jet looks exactly like an actual jet, but maybe it can't fly, and wing details are still subject to design change.) To me, a mock-up of a new RS (or SR!) page would be an almost complete plug-and-play replacement of the existing page. Perhaps what you have is just the first version, and you are heading in that direction. Or maybe you just wanted to outline a plan, and open it for discussion, it wasn't really clear to me. (I tend to prefer mock-ups, as they give people something concrete to look at and debate. I find criticism, alternate proposals, or even loud disagreement with something concrete to be more productive than most other approaches, but maybe that's just me.)

That said, how do you show others what's been changed in an organized way, drawing their attention to specific changes when there are a lot of changes all over, but where a significant portion (content, or even just section concepts) of it is retained? Here is where the mechanics of it come into play, and imho can be crucial to a successful outcome.
The Diff program can be a starting point, but has serious drawbacks, as noted; complex changes or changes sprinkled all over lead to chaotic diffs. However, there are workarounds that use Diff, and other methods that avoid it entirely.

Currently, WP:RS ↗ has five top-level sections, and 32 subsections. If I wanted to both reorganize/reorder the sections as well as change the wording in some of them, I would present the two tasks separately. For reordering, I would present either a ToC mock-up alone (page with no lead and no body, just the simulated ToC), or a page with sections only, letting mediawiki generate the ToC. For an example of the latter, see here.

If I wanted to change the wording in, say, half the sections, I would probably create sixteen subpage mock-ups, which would all be identical with WP:RS ↗, except for the content of one section, as in this test example, a copy of WP:RS ↗ with section {{slink|WP:RS|Fringe theories}} replaced. Note that the Diff program can easily compare two different pages, like this ↗, which shows very cleanly exactly what was changed, as the changes are all confined to one section. With sixteen of these (or eight, or five, if you doubled up on some adjacent sections) you could easily provide other editors with the clean comparisons they need to easily understand your changes, and to be able to comment on them piecewise.

Another approach to showing scattered changes, is the side-by-side approach, with separately scrollable, half-width frames adjacent to each other. An example of that is here, comparing the live WP:RS ↗ with a version of RS with the content of section Fringe theories entirely replaced with something else. This type of comparison can show multiple or scattered changes more easily because of the separate scrolling controls. Hope this gives you some ideas. Mathglot (talk) 22:51, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

:Thank you @Mathglot. Yes, I had started a discussion at WT:RS#Reorganisation and potential changes ↗ and was intending to get some feedback on the outline/general idea and go from there, but it didn't really get enough attention to go anywhere. I really like the idea of a ToC mock-up, and the side-by-side is brilliant. A ToC mock-up like the one you linked would be quite difficult here because we'd have to change headings, but maybe I can do a side-by-side ToC with the shortcuts like the what's at User talk:Kowal2701/Outline of Wikipedia:Source reliability? (fuck me I'm bad at coding) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs ↗) 20:56, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Help with the move

Hey @WhatamIdoing I have moved the discussion which was at the Village Pump (Policy) by following Template:Moved talk ↗, however I see square brackets at the top in both places. Original at Village Pump and New place on the Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view. Would you able to help me or it doesn't really matter? NicoR8 (talk) 19:28, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

:It's not super important, but someone fixed it ↗. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:10, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Last appeal to you

Hi. I'm reaching again to you because Wikipedia is being abused. You seemed reasonable before and I hope you'll look at what I'm saying objectively. I'm the IP who requested that closure request because user Joy was attacking and as admin bullying others to push his POV. After the closure he tried to convince you to accept his POV against the consensus. And ever since he's trying to convince others to revert the consensus. He had attacked everyone who disagreed. He managed to convince others that I'm a sock of another user who was pushing pro-Croatian stand, when in fact I was advocating totally opposite opinion , to remove Croatia from infobox. He's abusing his admin powers and telling untruths to other admins and they just accept it because he's an admin and I'm just IP. He didn't ban just me as a sock of that one and the same user, I saw that he convinced admins to ban several more users and I see some reports where he claimed that it's obvious others are also socks , that were rejected. He's just attacking and banning everyone who disagrees with him and he's obviously pushing his POV. Look at the article talk page, he's again pushing his POV. After he banned everyone who disagreed , it appears that there's a consensus for his POV. This is highly against wiki guidelines. NOTHERE, not dropping the stick, etc....He's also telling everyone that the article is highly problematic and pushing others to leave the article , when the only problem is him pushing POV, attacking and banning everyone who disagrees. He created all problems and who he can't just attack , like you, he's bullying to leave the article. Is there something that can be done or that Wiki article is just his private playground? Is it possible to ask some admin to create new account and try to disagree with him, on that article so the more objective admins can see how he is abusing his admin powers? Do you have any advice? I did follow your advice and have stayed away from that article, but I'm reading what's happening and I'm seeing he's not dropping the stick after loosing to that that consensus. Is there really nothing that can be done? Someone can just occupy an Wiki article and do whatever he wants there? We all shoukd be equal and be able to have civilized argumented discussion , and not "winning" by banning others. I did everything right in that formal closure. He deleted my comments. I didn't revert. Left for others to discuss and ask for formal closure. And you assessed it without my deleted comments. I was civilized and following the rules , but nothing matters. He just waits a few months, finds few users who agree with him , bans and attacks others who disagree and has his own way anyways. This isn't how Wikipedia is envisioned and is highly against wiki rules, but are admins above rules? Here again, I'm not posting to discussion, but appealing to you, is there something that can be done?~2026-29379-49 ↗ (talk) 19:45, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

:Hmm. Are you really Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia ↗, or just to focus on Tesla's nationality? Did you Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass ↗, or are you still trying to beat a dead horse in the hope that you can get an outcome you would find more palatable? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:20, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
::Were are you getting that I'm "focused" on Tesla's nationality? Neither I , nor anyone else has ever been focused on Tesla's nationality or ethnicity. Go and search through archives if you don't believe me. Also, which stick am I not dropping? I haven't edited the article once , not have started the discussion that I requested formal closure for. I posted my opinion there and that's all. I mean, it's ridiculous that Joy has convinced other admins to ban me as sock of some disruptive user who was pro-Croatian , while I advocated to remove Croatia in that previous discussion. And I even didn't revert Joy when he deleted my comments, nor go to edit warring. I left for others to discuss and just requested formal closure. You know the best that you didn't even know about my deleted comments when you assessed the consensus. I did everything right and ever since then Joy has been working to get his way. Several times he tried to engage others to agree with him. He spoke about that consensus in negative tone to diminish it. He banned several users who disagreed with him. Do you want diffs? Even now, here , I followed your advice to stay away from that discussion. But , who's not dropping the stick here, I or Joy? My whole claim is that he's not dropping the stick. ~2026-29526-24 ↗ (talk) 21:11, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
::User Beland says that Template Infobox Person was updated last year to stop prohibiting this type of clarification https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nikola_Tesla/Nationality_and_ethnicity&diff=prev&oldid=1354499592 ↗. And of course , who updated it https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_person/doc&diff=prev&oldid=1315208224 ↗. Also, User Binksternet is Joy's acquaintance from previous discussions and after initially posting his opinion in the discussion that you closed where he disagreed with Joy, Joy had made him change that opinion, so now he supports Joy's stand. I could find the diffs. ~2026-29519-68 ↗ (talk) 22:20, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:Statistics

Hey,

1) you added some content on WP:Statistics ↗. For that content I would like to request inline references containing links and/or explanations how to get the results so that readers can verify and reproduce the method as well as update the figures in the future.

for example

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Statistics&diff=prev&oldid=1320603209

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Statistics&diff=prev&oldid=1313504577

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Statistics&diff=prev&oldid=1286741086

2) Regarding the table of percentile page views: You put in quarry query 80241 into https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/massviews, correct? The list of 10,000 does not only include active articles, but also redirects and deleted articles, right? Wikipedia has 7.1 million active articles and 11.8 million redirects. So in that list of 10,000 should be more redirects than active articles. Isn't the data base somewhat skewed if one only wants to write something about active articles?

Still I would like to make a chart for this topic to show that only a very low share of articles get a lot of page views. I thought about only taking those out of the 10,000 that have at least 5 page views per day. The remaining sample size should have a way bigger share of active articles. And even with this smaller sample size, the chart shows: "Only a very low share of articles on Wikipedia gets a lot of page views"

Or do you have an idea to get a data base with page views that only contains active articles without redirects and deleted articles? WikiPate (talk) 11:36, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

:Hello, @WikiPate. MassViews was a hassle, because it timed out on the long list, so I ended up running it in batches and then assembling it in a simple spreadsheet. If memory serves, that sample set included redirects but not (then-)deleted articles.
:If you want to work on this, I suggest starting over. That means:
:* Get a new sample. 10K articles is a good number to be working with. Get articles that have existed for a whole year.
:* Actually, get two: one for active articles and one for mainspace redirects. Then you can compare, and then Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion ↗ can have a fair understanding of what an average number of page views is for a redirect.
:* Split up the lists and make a couple of big PagePiles https://pagepile.toolforge.org/
:* Run MassViews on each PagePile, and assemble the results in a spreadsheet. Really basic statistics (e.g., median and other round-number percentiles) seem to be easy for editors to understand.
:WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:56, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
::thanks for your reply. Massviews has always run smoothly on my side. In my sample were many redirects and deleted articles. Then I changed the quarry and now there are no redirects, deleted articles and disambiguation pages included anymore. As I wanted it. With this quarry (105426):
::<code>SELECT p.page_title</code>
::<code>FROM page p</code>
::<code>INNER JOIN revision r ON p.page_latest = r.rev_id</code>
::<code>LEFT JOIN page_props pp ON p.page_id = pp.pp_page AND pp.pp_propname = 'disambiguation'</code>
::<code>WHERE p.page_namespace = 0</code>
::<code>AND p.page_is_redirect = 0</code>
::<code>AND p.page_random >= 0.83921</code>
::<code>AND pp.pp_page IS NULL</code>
::<code>ORDER BY p.page_random ASC</code>
::<code>LIMIT 10000;</code> WikiPate (talk) 19:34, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
:::Great. I'm looking forward to seeing the results. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:26, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
::::It says that 70% of all articles have at least 1 page view per day on average. wow.
::::To validate I checked the page views of 50 random articles with WP:Random ↗. And both numbers come quite close.
::::I put the numbers here for now: User:WikiPate/Statistics
::::In SQL in addition to excluded article redirects, deleted articles and disambiguation pages I also excluded wikispecies redirects and redirects for discussion. I replaced <code>AND p.page_random >= 0.83921</code> with <code>AND p.page_random >= RAND()</code>. The current quarry is 105482. WikiPate (talk) 20:37, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::I think that what's in Wikipedia:Statistics#English Wikipedia ↗ includes redirects (which we should expect to be lower). I'd love to have your new set of numbers replace the old ones. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:25, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
::::::<nowiki>*done*</nowiki>
::::::Could you write, how you found out this?: "{{tq|About half of articles contain four or fewer references.}}" WikiPate (talk) 23:53, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::::The sample set is User:BilledMammal/Average articles, and from there it's very basic spreadsheet work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:18, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

You may be eligible to vote in the U4C election

<section begin="announcement-content" />
I am contacting you because you previously voted in elections related to the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ↗. You may be eligible to vote in the current U4C election, which is open now and closes on 2 June 2026. You can find out more about the candidates and the election on the election page on Meta ↗, and from there you can access the vote itself. Your participation in these elections is important to the governance of Wikimedia communities, and your time spent learning about the candidates and voting is appreciated.

-- In cooperation with the U4C, Keegan (WMF) ↗ (talk ↗)<section end="announcement-content" />

Keegan (WMF) ↗ (talk ↗) 17:19, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

ONUS history

I think this ↗ was a great idea. Thanks for putting that together! --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:58, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

:Thanks. Please boldly add any other discussions you find. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:51, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Medicine archive links

I replied and shared a list of pages. In the meantime, any requests specifically for project medicine or anything else? Dw31415 (talk) 15:36, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

:Can you give me a list of articles tagged by WP:MED ↗ that have 5+ ATODAY links? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:55, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
::You have the list with “naked” links right? So just scan the articles in “med” and csm1 maintenance? Dw31415 (talk) 20:23, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
:::Yes, the "naked" links are listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Deprecated archival service#Outside of citation templates ↗ and there aren't very many of them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:30, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
::{{doing}} for my notes, here is the query: https://quarry.wmcloud.org/query/105640 Dw31415 (talk) 13:52, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
::{{done}} User:WhatamIdoing/Medicine_Archival_Link_Counts Dw31415 (talk) 14:01, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
:::@WhatamIdoing, is that what you were asking for? Dw31415 (talk) 02:05, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
::::Yes, that looks good. (Ouch, 312 WP:ATODAY ↗ links in that one page!) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:55, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Where to ask question

I asked at the WP:Help desk#Historical transclusions of an image ↗ a few days ago, but haven't gotten any responses with any actual answer. Would WP:VPM ↗ or another noticeboard I'm not aware be the right place to ask that question? Katzrockso (talk) 21:47, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

:WP:VPT ↗ is the correct place for that kind of question, and the answer is that there's no way to find past uses of images (or templates, for that matter) on wiki.
:It might be possible with some of the historical dumps, if it was used for a significant length of time (e.g., long enough to get caught in the snapshots) or if you downloaded the huge every-single-revision-ever versions and searched. If you only want to do this for one image (or a few), then you might see whether you can find it in archive.org and see whether the global usage section (example ↗) mentions it being used for the file you're interested in at any of the dates they captured. If it's listed there, you would know; if it wasn't, that would only prove that it didn't happen to be present on the days the archive snapshots were taken. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:00, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
::That's very surprising that there isn't a tool to do this or that it isn't tracked anywhere, but thanks for the information. The relevant image, for transparency, is c:File:Michael Jackson with accuser James Safechuck (46844862102).jpg ↗. At :c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Michael Jackson with accuser James Safechuck (46844862102).jpg ↗, Rhododentrites stated "Regardless, it is in use in multiple places". Archives on web.archive.org of the commons file note only usage at :c:User:Holly Cheng/Recent uploads/Hawaii/2022 March 24 ↗, one page on the German Wikipedia and two on the Italian Wikipedia. I am curious if this was ever used on the English Wikipedia. Katzrockso (talk) 23:13, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
:::(It's one of those fundamental architectural consequences.)
:::You could ask that editor if he happens to remember whether it was ever used here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:21, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
::::Thanks, I asked over at Commons. Katzrockso (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

a barnstar for u!

thumb|100px|alexa gives this to u as well! she enjoyed readin’ ur userpage! ↗
{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | 100px ↗

|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Barnstar of Good Humor'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | ur userpage has all the humor, made both me & alexa laugh. '''Alto'''Hampton t • c ↗ • g • s 01:00, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
|}

:Thank you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:13, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Statement Source

Hi WhatamIdoing, in a recent discussion over at Talk:Cass Review ↗, you mentioned to me that {{tq|"the last estimate I saw was that about half of medicine was evidence-based now."}} Do you remember where you saw that? I'd like to read it and get more context (not for the article, just out of interest). Thank you! InfernoHues (talk) 02:52, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

:I can't find the source that I read that in some years ago, but https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2071976/ gives a sort of backtrace. NB that "not evidence-based" doesn't mean that no research has ever been done; it could include inadequate research or conflicting results. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:04, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
::Thanks :) InfernoHues (talk) 04:13, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Request help with Delta Academy High School Page nominated for deletion

Good morning, WhatamIdoing. I am writing to ask your insight and/or for support with the Delta Academy ↗ High School Wikipedia page nominated for deletion. Currently there are 2 votes to delete, one to keep (mine), and none to merge. I am reaching out based on your previous edits to Wikipedia:Notability_(high_schools) ↗. thesofine (talk) 06:43, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Such a W wikipedian

bro linked the amensia test and it helped me know what was wrong with my question immediately youre way better than the ton of old people who dont understand technology like that one guy who has been on wikipedia for 19 years and doesnt understand how evidence works when he says Joe bart isnt famous when he has almost 5m subs hope you find success bye ~2026-31752-66 ↗ (talk) 01:41, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

:I'm glad that you found the explanation in the Wikipedia:Amnesia test ↗ page to be helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:51, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Townes-Brocks Syndrome

I am curious what your interest and background with Townes-Brocks Syndrome is. I have it. I was born with the anorectal issue and had surgery at 3 days old. I am now 56 years old and beginning to have kidney issues as I have been diagnosed CKD 3A. I just started with a nephrologist and have also been referred to the largest university medical system in my state. Thank you kindly, TheOGDiggyDaddy OGDiggyDaddy (talk) 00:55, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

:I know nothing about it. My only edit to the Townes–Brocks syndrome ↗ article was to address a technical problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:57, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
::Thank you! OGDiggyDaddy (talk) 01:11, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Pep talk handy?

Hi! Any words of encouragement for me (about the archive today bot situation)? I'm kicking myself for not starting an RfC a month ago about how to "remove" archive today links. I'm also frustrated by the lack of compromise and collaboration. It feels like editors are just yelling "we decided to remove" or "but these archives are really handy" or ... . Anyway. I'm just venting. thank you. I hope you're well and if you get a chance to review the dry run at User:Dw31415/ArchiveEdits1 I'd appreciate it. Dw31415 (talk) 04:39, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

:It's on my list, but I probably won't get to it today. I think we need to let this conversation about the global blacklisting ↗ and the subsequent bold un-blacklisting settle. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:58, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Apple Crisp ↗

Hi, as you previously have discussed Apple Crisp/Crumble, you may want to participate in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apple crisp ↗. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 08:05, 3 July 2026 (UTC)