User talk:WhatamIdoing

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

Question re Global Account Information

I don't know if you are the right person to as this question to, but I also don't know who is. I apologise in advance if it isn't you I should be asking and hope you can tell me where is the right place to do so if not.

I was reading WhatamIdoing/I am going to die, which was very encouraging for someone feeling super jaded about wikipedia. It led me to global account information where I looked myself up and it says I started editing in 2014. But if I go to my contributions page it shows I sarted in 2005, which is in fact the case. Any idea why this is so? Morgan Leigh | Talk 05:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

It's a consequence of the Wikipedia:Unified login system. When we created our accounts, you had to create accounts separately at every wiki. Eventually that changed, but for us old hands, the date in the centralized system is the date that centralization started for us, rather than the date our first account was created. Special:CentralAuth/WhatamIdoing says my date was 2011; that's a centralization date. The local log says 2006, which is when I created my account here.

BTW, there are a few people whose accounts are so old that the account creation isn't visible in the local log. These are usually from 2001 (when Wikipedia was running a different type of software altogether). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for that information. Morgan Leigh | Talk 05:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

May music

story · music · places

Today's story mentions a concert I loved to hear (DYK) and a piece I loved to sing in choir, 150 years old (OTD). - Thank you for your voice of reason in the MoS discussion! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

29 May 1913: The Rite of Spring - today's story, actually something I saw at that place in a revival. - Do you remember the infobox discussion 100 years after the premiere, often mentioned in the arbcase? - Today a user who returned after several years said that nothing changed. Would you agree? I wouldn't ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Mail

I have disabled mail, and I do not want to get mails. If you do this again, I will seriously think about either leaving Wikipedia or raising a stink about you. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

It sounds like you need to check your settings. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

DYK RFC

Given your helpful guidance earlier, I thought I would get your thought on Wikipedia talk:Did you know#RFC on DYK and BLP policy. The RFC has not progressed as productively as I would have liked under Question 2, and seems like the RFC has only been successful at identifying an area of controversy with two camps viewing things very differently. I'm really not sure how to proceed here. Moving on to questions 3 and 4 seems tenuous given the lack of meaningful engagement with question 2. I could move onto proposals... but I am not sure that's wise either. I'm not really sure what to do from this point. Any thought would be appreciated. Thanks.4meter4 (talk) 20:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes, the best realistic outcome is identifying the two opposing camps.

What I suggest for right now is waiting. The RFC has only been open a week. People are actively replying. I suggest that you leave it alone for a few days. Try letting other people talk, while staying silent yourself. You may find that the same points get made, without you having to make any of them.

When you come back to the discussion later, try to be encouraging and curious. @Toughpigs often said we should try to "Imagine a world in which the other person is not wrong". You don't have to pretend they're right, but try to understand their view as not 100% wrong. Perhaps they had a particular situation in mind? Perhaps they were thinking of a recent trend and not the longer view that you were thinking of? Perhaps they have a different idea about what "negative" means? There are all sorts of ways in which the other person could be providing useful information to you, if you can understand what they're thinking of. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:52, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

June music

story · music · places

Today's story is about the TFA, by sadly missed Vami_IV. In my support in 2018, I hoped to do justice to Schloss Köthen next - which I finally began today. For more related thoughts and music, look on my talk for 1 June. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Franz Kafka died 100 years ago OTD, hence the story. I uploaded a few pics from the visit of Graham87. - I read your advice above, and tried to apply it to Gustav Mahler (talk), but it doesn't work. I tried to explain exactly what I see differently. Can you help, perhaps. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Today is "the day" for James Joyce, also for Bach's fourth chorale cantata (and why does it come before the third?) - the new pics have a mammal I had to look up. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

New pics of food and flowers come with the story of Noye's Fludde (premiered on 18 June), written by Brian Boulton. I nominated Éric Tappy because he died, and it needs support today! I nominated another women for GA in the Women in Green June run, - review welcome, and more noms planned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

A review was started, and no other articles became ready for a nom. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:32, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

My reply to your comment

I decided to reply to you here, because I really do not want to continue discussing over there, but yet I felt you deserved that I reply to your comment. Imagine that the encyclopedia is read by someone that knows nothing about the election and doesn't trust the Wikipedia editors—after all, we are nobody. Wikipedia says "Wacko Smith says Trump won. (We say) Trump lost" - the part "We say" is not explicit, but that is what is understood by the person. We use and cite reliable sources, but what the person knows about the sources might be limited. Providing more information, more context, etc. makes the person less dependent on us and more able to make his own judgment. The principle says "not taking sides", but it is not to be taken in the sense that we do not affirm it, because that is irrelevant (or, better, it should be considered irrelevant). What counts is the information we provide. Do not engage (as if it was dependent on you), but describe (making it dependent on the readers). Dominic Mayers (talk) 04:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Have you seen Wikipedia:Let the reader decide? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:33, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

No, but I went to read it. There is something I did not like in that essay, but could not easily put my finger on it. So, I apologize for the changes I made to this post. Finally, I think it is the whole idea of letting the readers decide that I do not like. In particular, it can be interpreted to mean do not affirm a statement as a fact, because it's the reader that must decide. I prefer not to see this as a main goal. Instead, we must simply understand that it is a fact that providing information allows the readers to make a judgment and, if we are realistic about how some readers trust little Wikipedia, we accept that it's the way it will often happen. It's more like saying: let us face it, we have to provide info so that the readers can actually know something. If we just say "Trump lost" and give a source that the readers do not even know, that is not so useful. Why should the readers trust Wikipedia? OK, I admit that there is some trust in Wikipedia, but it is good to write in a way that does not rely too much on that trust. Anyway, that's my way to explain do not engage but describe. Here describe means provide information. Dominic Mayers (talk) 06:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I wondered whether you were familiar with that page because I think that other editors are, and I feel like they are reacting to your comments as if you have gone much further in the direction of that page than you really have.

The problem with "Wacko Smith says Trump won. (We say) Trump lost" is that it's not always obvious that "Wacko Smith" is a minority viewpoint, especially if you're not in the relevant culture. Providing that information doesn't help the reader make a judgement. Providing that information often confuses readers and makes them believe that this fact is a matter of personal opinion. Consider "Surgery cures many cancers, but <name you don't recognize> prefers dietary interventions." These are not of equal value, and you have no idea whether that name is reputable or a quack.

For issues of opinion or viewpoint, we often want something like "Deontologists say X, but consequentialists say Y, and utilitarianists say Z". What we often get is "Kant said X, Machiavelli said Y, and Mill said Z".

For issues of fact, we often want just "Trump lost". Only in certain contexts would we want to expand on that, to add that some people didn't believe that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

When I say that little info is the problem, this includes it's not always obvious that "Wacko Smith" is a minority ... and every thing you wrote in the same paragraph. I might disagree with the next two paragraphs. Providing little info can be as much a problem in the case of opinions than in the case of facts. You seem to say that, in the case of facts, it is important to provide little info. You cannot really mean that, certainly not in the case of relevant encyclopedic information about the fact. You might mean that it is hard to see how an extra info of the kind "Wacko Smith says Trump won" does not favour fringe theories. This is why I feel these examples that present dilemmas such as including "Wacko Smith says Trump won" or not are not realistic. These are false dilemmas. we have to consider all the different ways to manage the fact that "Wacko Smith says Trump won". Perhaps most readers have already read Wacko Smith. Managing that in a proper context can be useful to remove a confusion. The same general principle applies here. Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

For the Trump example, the fact that some people don't believe Biden won the election is almost never relevant. It would be appropriate to mention in articles that are directly related, like Election denial movement in the United States, but not in most articles that happen to mention Biden being president. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

When it is understood that "not taking sides" requires "describing" instead of "engaging" and that "describing" means providing information, we can understand why people who worry about fringe theories are kind of concerned when we explain the neutral point of view. My mistake has been to enter into this problem and participate in it instead of explaining that all of this (not taking sides, describing instead of engaging, reliable sources, relevancy, etc.) converge toward the same goal. A unified understanding of "provide-info" and "reject-info" principles is needed and NPOV contains the "provide-info" principles whereas relevancy, NOR and V are "reject-info" principles. In that light, what I tried to explain, is that we cannot get this unified understanding without accepting that the solution often requires that we think out of the box, instead of focalizing on false dilemmas. That is NOT a way to refute the "reject-info" principles, but a way to place them in that unified understanding. Only the NPOV policy, not V or NOR, contains provide-info principles. For a proper balance, it should clearly explain them. Dominic Mayers (talk) 19:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Editing policy also leans towards the "provide-info" side. I'm not sure that NPOV is all about "provide-info". Some parts of it are "reject-info", too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Sure, NPOV now contains reject-info. This is what happened in 2005 with due weight and in 2006 or later with reliable sources. I never said that NPOV is only about include-info, of course not. On the contrary, I am saying that it is the only policy (among the basic content policies) that has include-info principles but, since 2005, they only get removed and less explained. The only justification provided, to my knowledge, is that these inclusion principles can be used to include fringe theories. The reject-info principles are not the issue. The issue is that we do not have a balanced unified understanding of the two sides, but instead a removal of the include-info side. For example, there is no mention anymore that including the arguments is a good way to achieve the neutral point of view. In 2005, this was emphasized right at the start. It's not there anymore. Dominic Mayers (talk) 22:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

If you want to argue original intent, then you might want to read nostalgia:Neutral point of view. It argues for including the facts that some people believe things, but not to say that they're correct.

If you want a more fundamental principle, I think that "include-info" is in tension with the idea that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not possible to include everything and still produce an encyclopedic (e.g., concise) summary of the subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Referring to history as nostalgia is not a good attitude. Understanding our history is very useful to understand where we are and how we can move forward. The second part of your comment ignores that providing info is useful to achieve neutrality or, worst, it claims that this cannot be the case because an encyclopedia should not provide all info of the well accepted common sense requirement that an encyclopedia should not provide all info. I do not think we need to pursue that discussion. Thank you very much for taking the time to reply to my comments. Dominic Mayers (talk) 01:17, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

nostalgia.wikipedia.org is the name of the website that lets you see how things were in Wikipedia's early days. I didn't choose the name.

I don't think that an encyclopedia should provide "all info". WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I understood all of that. Have a good day ! Dominic Mayers (talk) 08:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Just to add that looking at your talk page I noticed the appreciation that your essay "I will die..." received. I think it is deserved. Dominic Mayers (talk) 20:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. It seems to resonate with some editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Reiki

"Level 3" practitioners are certified to be able to project their abilities backwards through time, and will therefore ask payment for your state of health up to this point in your life (which would have been worse without their intervention), as well as a reasonable continued monthly payment, because you never know. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång, do you have good sources for that? That seems very much like the sort of thing Quackwatch would mention, and I don't see anything remotely like that in their main page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Sooo... did you fail to grasp that I was in The Onion-mode or am I failing to grasp that you are too? I was attempting sarcastic humor, there is no source. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I was inspired by ""Level 2" practitioners alternatively may offer their services at a distance with no skin contact." which made me think "Ah, reiki by texting." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:33, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I assumed you were serious. I'm not familiar with this modality, and a "new patient fee" is something I can easily imagine someone charging. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Text-only communication, what can you do. Also, this kind of communication failure is a grand tradition of it's own: The_Onion#Taken_seriously. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång:, LMFAO! I caught it immediately. It's good I wasn't drinking something at the time. Good one. The absurdity of this stuff is mindblowing. The criticisms are on point, and actually more gentle than reiki deserves. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

The idea of "intention" determining the success of the treatment is similar to homeopathy, where the intent supposedly targets the treatment. The "water" or whatever that has been diluted, has been in contact with myriad substances, includes the pee and poo of thousands of people over millennia, yet it is only the one substance deliberately intended for the treatment (a duck's liver?) that has an effect, not the poo and pee. Here's something I once wrote:

The Memory of Water: Homeopathic Musings

Does homeopathic water "remember" its origins? That's what is claimed! I've done a little thinking about the implications of this idea.

A lot of it has been through the gastrointestinal tracts of a lot of people. Thereafter a lot of toilets and sewage treatment plants, before finally ending up as pure, distilled water, ready to be brainwashed into forgetting its past. First then is it prepared to selectively remember only its contact with the active, healing substances it was brought into contact with for a short time in the apothecary's lab.

Is homeopathic water actually reincarnated piss? Can a regression therapist help it remember its past lives? What tales could it tell? Of course it probably will remember passing through a famous historical person and actually being in a royal toilet! Homeopathic water isn't just ordinary water. It comes with a royal pedigree.

Does the longer passage time for men than for women (men therefore succuss the water looonger than women ..... ;-) result in accounts from reincarnated piss of its origins from famous men, more frequently than from famous women? (I'm assuming that more succussing results in longer and better memory-retention.)

But what happens if the water has amnesia? If it has a defective memory function, how will it then be able to remember its contact with a healing substance? Again, it'll need to go into therapy. Maybe then the regression therapist can help it recall its birth and other traumatic experiences. Can water be psychotic or neurotic? Maybe psychotherapy is what's needed. Can water have split or multiple personalities? We're really getting in deep water here!

This all sounds quite hypothetical. If, if, if.... Like Roger Whittaker sings, "If's an illusion". Just like homeopathy. And illusions can be powerful things. Just like faith, they can move mountains - mountains of money!

It's been said that there's more between heaven and earth than meets the eye. Maybe. But most of it is free fantasy. And when free fantasy gets run through the alt. med. spinning wheel, it becomes an elaborate, sometimes enticingly beautiful fabric, which can be sold. It's no longer free. Now fantasy costs! And since nobody in their right mind would dream of paying for fantasy, their cognitive dissonance plays them a trick. They excuse themselves for doing something so dumb, with the rationalization: "It worked for me. That's proof enough".

Another singer, Enya, has recorded a great CD called "The Memory of Trees". Maybe she should record one called "The Memory of Water".... ;-)

We need to get Bill Cosby & Jerry Seinfeld to work up a series of homeopathic jokes!

Sorry folks, but sometimes I just have a hard time keeping a straight face when thinking about homeopathy.... ;-) It just proves that even totally nonsensical and illogical ideas can get swallowed by otherwise intelligent people. Intelligence is not always an effective vaccine against foolishness!

The acid test of the ability, or lack of it, to experience cognitive dissonance, is homeopathy. On the condition that the way it works is known (by its own definitions), anyone that can believe in homeopathy is, by definition, very seriously illogical. They are most likely immune to logical arguments regarding other forms of quackery. (But try discussing their financial affairs, and they can suddenly become very logical! Especially if they can turn a quick buck.)

The above are some of my own homeopathic "insights" from the previous millennium (I DO understand how homeopathy works! That's why I'm just a little sarcastic). -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Visual Editor issues

Perhaps this is your expertise. I'm wondering if it's something on my end or if it's Wiki side. Can you duplicate what I am experiencing? I can't access the references within pop up menu when I'm in visual edit. Just started experiencing this today. Wikipedia:Teahouse#Can_not_access_sources_from_pop-up_while_in_visual_editing_mode. Thank you Graywalls (talk) 21:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

WMF misleading the Guardian

I know you've left WMF, but is it pointless to try doing anything about a gross WMF mis-statement misleading the Guardian -Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red#Wikiesfera_and_other_Wikimedia_gender_gap_projects_on_Guardian ? Johnbod (talk) 12:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Comms is likely already on it. They monitor anything that mentions Wikipedia, and I'm sure that would come up, but in addition, I'm pretty sure that that department has a long-time eswiki editor who would notice and care about that particular point.

I have heard over the years that the number of corrections they request is larger than the number of corrections that get published. If the publishers decide that people will just glork the "of biographies only" context, then they (the publisher) won't bother. Also, I just clicked Special:Random button 10 times at eswiki, and came up with three BLP women (and only two men), so it's (just barely) possible that it's correct. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, a) it really isn't possible it's correct, b) the Guardian claim doesn't specify Spanish, and links to the WMF page as a ref, which doesn't either. Nor does the Humanwiki source. They can at least change the WMF page, but I don't share your faith that they will even spot the issue. Johnbod (talk) 16:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your note - I emailed WMF press direct, so we shall see (or not). Johnbod (talk) 14:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Scam publisher

Just some quick background on this revert. Ed-Tech Press / Scientific E-Resources is a scam publisher that has wholesale copied our articles with zero attribution. Luckily, they published mostly before the grand days of AI/LLM rewording, so the copied text is pretty clear. That particular page you're linking to was copied from our article at Germ theory of disease somewhere around 2018 (see here). Really sorry for the inconvenience, that's a really deceptive publisher. Sam Kuru (talk) 11:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, @Kuru! I always appreciate you keeping an eye out for that publisher. I wonder if we could set up a Special:AbuseFilter for that string, with a 'warn' setting? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

@Kuru, I've suggested a filter at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested#Warn about a Wikipedia mirror. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Jeffrey Leiden Updates

Hi Whatamidoing. I hope you are well. I see that you have an interest in medical issues by your participation in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Participants#Active_participants. Therefore, I am hoping you might like to take a look at what I believe is a straightforward edit request I posted at Talk:Jeffrey_Leiden#Updates. Jeffrey Leiden is the executive chairman of Vertex Pharmaceuticals. Another editor has already implemented the last bullet point of four in total, and has said he is not going to implement the rest, but he does "not oppose if other editors make them." If you think the remaining edits are reasonable, would you kindly implement them? Thanks so much, JohnDatVertex (talk) 14:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I really have very little interest in burnishing the articles about CEOs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

hi

WAID I was wondering if you wouldn't mind chiming in[1],thanks Ozzie--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, the ping worked, but

Can't really tell what this diff is -- I did some kind of formatting error and you are fixing it? If so, thanks 😁 jp×g🗯️ 01:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Colin°^Talk 13:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

TY for your reply

...at the NPOV discussion. As a non-registering editor, I do not engage at Noticeboards, etc. Best that I can do is call attention to issues with potential for becoming superheated. Cheers, and thanks again. 98.206.30.195 (talk) 00:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Your choice, I guess, but if you choose to post a question about how to apply the policy to a specific article on a page that says:

at the top, then I don't think you should realistically expect anything to happen as a result of your post. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

July music

story · music · places

My story today is - because of the anniversary of the premiere OTD in 1782 - about Die Entführung aus dem Serail, opera by Mozart, while yesterday's was - because of the TFA - about Les contes d'Hoffmann, opera by Offenbach, - so 3 times Mozart if you click on "music" ;) -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Today's story is about a photographer who took iconic pictures, especially View from Williamsburg, Brooklyn, on Manhattan, 9/11, yesterday's was a great mezzo, and on Thursday we watched a sublime ballerina. If that's not enough my talk offers chamber music from two amazing concerts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Main Page history/2024 July 30b had a baritone, a violinist, a composer and a Bach cantata, - almost too much, and the composer's article, Wolfgang Rihm, improved much over the last days, could still grow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

A Barnstar

		The Helping Hand Barnstar
		For all of the help you provide at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine. I don't think I would have continued editing, or at least wouldn't be editing as much as I currently do if it wasn't for your continuous help. Your knowledge and willingness to help others does not go unnoticed. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 17:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm always happy to see your posts there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Reliable source discussion

I am sorry that I got confused I didnt know that reliable source discussions had their own page Wwew345t (talk) 00:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

@Wwew345t, I will reply at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:58, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Grinnell 14

The Grinnell 14 article is so wonderful! I am so grateful you drafted and gave it so much of its contents.

I've been interested in researching more about them, and am a fellow Grinnellian. I'd love to learn what you've dug up so far. Ping me back if you're interested in chatting! Verbistheword (talk) 22:11, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, @Verbistheword. Everything I know is in the article. It's possible that the college has more information. I'd suggest contacting the library. https://www.grinnell.edu/academics/libraries/special-collections-archives has a link to a contact form at the bottom of the page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah, thank you! I talked with the folks in Burling basement a few years ago and saw their lil' folder of info.

(And that makes sense, re: article content)

I do wonder—the article references several newspaper articles I don't have direct access to: Might you have copies of them that you could share?

Although I can of course dig them up myself via the citations and various archives, if you happen to have them easily accessible, I'd appreciate the leg up! Verbistheword (talk) 13:37, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I got the older newspapers through Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library, which offers free access to Newspapers.com and similar services. I think you need to have made 10+ edits during the last 30 days to get automatic access to these, so go fix eight typos, and then log in at https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/ WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:49, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Ahhhh thank you so much! I had no idea about this service. Such a help. Verbistheword (talk) 11:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

We disagree on a lot…

But I have to say that I enjoy our discussions; they’re always civil, and I do appreciate you finding uses for the data that I randomly throw at you, even if you don’t agree with my conclusions about that data.

Thank you! BilledMammal (talk) 23:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I've been wishing for some of these numbers for years. Thank you so much for indulging my requests. I'll be interested in seeing the subject comparisons. Have you considered Category:Declined AfC submissions as a potential 'subject area'?

One of the reasons I've wanted these is because telling editors what's "popular" or "typical" tends to reinforce that situation, without making an Official Rule™. For example, thanks to your numbers, we can now say that the median article cites four sources. Editors tend to respond to that fact with a thought process that runs "Wikipedia is good, and most Wikipedia articles cite at least four sources; therefore, citing at least four sources in an article is good". If we let them run with that for a couple of years, then the median article is likely to have five sources – all without any coercion or rule-making, and just strictly by saying what's common/popular/normal. If we tell them that most articles have 2 to 9 sources, then {{one source}} might get more use, and we might someday even get a {{two sources}} to go with it – and in a few years, we might find that the middle quartiles of Wikipedia articles cite 3 to 10 sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:57, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

That's a good point; I hope it works out that way.

Have you considered Category:Declined AfC submissions as a potential 'subject area'?

I haven't, but it's easy to do - only 20,000 articles. I've started running it, and will hopefully be able to upload those statistics tomorrow. BilledMammal (talk) 14:11, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I have some hopes that having information will encourage more uniform behavior. It worked for the heading names in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Notes and references. We told people what was popular, without requiring or banning anything, and through various means, over time, the popular option became almost universally preferred. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:57, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

See User:BilledMammal/Declined_AFC_statistics. Sorry, took me a little longer to get around to formatting it then I hoped. BilledMammal (talk) 06:55, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Are the words and sentences headings backwards? And how's it coping with the AFC template stuff? I looked at Draft:Coordinated Lunar Time and it appears to be overcounting the words and undercounting the sentences. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

They were, fixed.

It won't count content in {{AFC comment}}, or the other templates, if that is what you were asking? BilledMammal (talk) 07:19, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I thought it was skipping that, but then why does it come up with so many words on the page? WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I looked into it; there was an issue with how I was tokenizing words. I've fixed it, and will rerun when a different program returns. BilledMammal (talk) 08:15, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Fixed and updated. BilledMammal (talk) 10:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

@BilledMammal, that's wrong in the opposite direction. Now it says that article only has nine words. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I think there was an issue with the upload - it seems to have truncated all figures to a single digit. Sorry, I’ll look into it tomorrow. BilledMammal (talk) 20:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. There's no rush on my end. BTW, for Draft:Coordinated Lunar Time, I count 295 words and 11 sentences. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:55, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

A voice of reason

Hi, I am reaching out to you because you provided a much needed voice of reason over on the Talk Page of the International churches of Christ a few weeks back. Right now, two editors are trying ban an editor who is trying to point out that the federal court cases being referenced on the page have been dismissed and they seem to be interpreting that as him trying to suppress negative press on the church. The admin board is here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Meta Voyager's tendentious editing JamieBrown2011 (talk) 17:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I doubt that a trip to the WP:DRAMABOARD will improve that article, and unfortunately, I'm not convinced that the people willing to work on that article are vested in what I'd call improvements. Its problems likely need to be solved in the Wikipedia:Independent sources before they will have even a small chance of being solved on Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@JamieBrown2011, this is WP:CANVASSING and is not permitted. TarnishedPath^talk 01:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

@Tarnished, Please stop following me around Wikipedia WP:WIKIHOUNDING is also not permitted. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I followed a link from the discussion at WP:ANI which stated that editors had been canvassed to the discussion. Other editors had already highlighted your behaviour. Strike your WP:ASPERSION. TarnishedPath^talk 07:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I wonder occasionally whether editors are capable of understanding the difference between an aspersion and an accusation. I'd classify that as the latter, not the former. I suspect this is part of our WP:UPPERCASE disease, so that it's more important to refer to an ArbCom case about hinting that someone was engaged in real-world criminal activities than to just say that we feel like the person isn't being very friendly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:ASPERSIONS, "On Wikipedia, casting aspersions is a situation where an editor accuses another editor or a group of editors of misbehavior without evidence". If you want to call it an accusation then the matter is still the same as an accusation has been made sans evidence. TarnishedPath^talk 00:29, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Would you like to explain how you decided to read my talk page and post here for the first time since you created your account in 2007? I assume that the answer is "Why, I checked Special:Contributions/JamieBrown2011 to see what they were up to, of course". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:53, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Refer to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal:_Topic_ban where not far under the heading is the following comment "Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)" TarnishedPath^talk 03:10, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Hounding is a behavior – innocently intended or otherwise – in which one editor follows another editor, whom he opposes, across multiple pages. So you oppose Jamie at Talk:International Churches of Christ, you oppose their assumed POV at ANI (where they haven't posted at all, and I haven't expressed an opinion on the main subject, BTW), and you oppose them here. That's three pages just during the last week or so. I'd say that constitutes "evidence" of WP:WIKIHOUNDING, and I bet that ArbCom would, too.

BTW, you and @Raladic might want to consider WP:APPNOTE, specifically the bit about "On the user talk pages of concerned editors", with an example of "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)". I did participate in a previous discussion on the specific question of COI edits at the article's talk page – one started by TarnishedPath to discourage JamieBrown2011 from editing that article – and the ANI discussion is partially about COI. It is therefore likely to be an appropriate notification, and since I have declined to participate in the decision at ANI, it would be difficult to claim that there was any harm done. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I didn't follow the link to the diff thinking it was in relation to Jamie. I didn't know who it was in relation to until I landed here. So no, there is no evidence of WP:HOUNDING.

Regarding your reference to APPNOTE, I'd consider WP:INAPPNOTE which states that selective notification of editors who you think have a common viewpoint is inappropriate. Your decision to not participate is entirely up to you. It's the selective notification which is inappropriate. TarnishedPath^talk 03:49, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

As my POV on the ANI discussion couldn't be determined from my prior comment, then I don't think that this is a case of notifying only editors with whom you think you have a common viewpoint.

My decision not to participate in that way should have been obvious to you when you decided to pointlessly warn me against accepting a notification you disapproved of, from an editor you've been fighting with. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I think you've got the wrong end of the stick here. I didn't write my comments above as a warning to you, they were directed at Jamie. Personally I wouldn't think twice of it if you did participate. TarnishedPath^talk 04:18, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

If you had only wanted Jamie to see your message, you wouldn't have posted on my talk page.

If you didn't want Jamie to feel WP:HOUNDED, you could have decided against saying anything about it at all. Hounding involves the "singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work...following the target from place to place on Wikipedia". I genuinely don't believe you intended anyone any harm, but you actually have been confronting this editor on multiple pages.

ANI is a really ineffective forum for that type of situation. As I indicated before you posted here, I do not think that participating will do any good. The outcomes will be wasted time, hurt feelings, and a worse article. If we're unlucky, we'll end up with a few more editors who believe that being an ordinary lay member of a religion or other similar organization is generally considered a disqualifying factor for editing articles related to that religion. If we're really unlucky, they'll believe that the community prefers these articles to be written by ex-members. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:34, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I posted here because this is where I saw their canvassing. Jamie has clearly not been hounded by me and if you think I have engaged in hounding of them I invite you to take it to ANI. TarnishedPath^talk 05:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't want to take you, or anyone else, to ANI. I do hope you can see how someone might come to the conclusion that you were hounding them. This isn't about your intentions, but about the appearance. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:11, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I have no judgement or knowledge of whether you could be involved in prior discussions, I merely stumbled over this notification that was given to you by chance.

But as I read it as an uninvolved editor, without any prior knowledge of the discussion, it had a clear point of view, which is squarely an WP:INAPPNOTE if it was intended to bring in people who share a specific point of view - Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions (which may be made known by a userbox, user category, or prior statement) - the message JamieBrown2011 left for you here implied a specific point of view, specifically this part here - Right now, two editors are trying ban an editor.. implies an attempt at potential vote stacking, which is why I issued a warning to JamieBrown2011 on their talk page and tagged the ANI per our policies to warn that inappropriate canvassing may have happened.

You may still be perfectly entitled to participate at the ANI per what you mentioned that you were part of some prior conversations, but it nonetheless made the selective notification above an inappropriate notification as it had a specific non-neutral intent in the way of the notification itself. An WP:APPNOTE must be issued neutrally, which the above was not and also - The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions, which is why it further failed. Raladic (talk) 04:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

My prior involvement was not one that could have led anyone to know my opinions about the accused editor's participation in the article. I made an impersonal statement about the usual ways of applying the COI guideline. If it really was "intended to bring in people who share a specific point of view" and I was "selected on the basis of their opinions", then it would have been more pointful to find people who actually share a specific point of view, rather than someone who has never said anything for, against, to, or about the accused editor.

I think you have jumped to unwarranted conclusions, probably on the basis of incomplete information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd have to strongly disagree with that. Jamie said right above "you provided a much needed voice of reason over on the Talk Page". While you may believe it was completely mysterious how you would view the issue, Jamie, the one who tried to canvass you clearly did not. Therefore it clearly was an attempt at canvassing and unacceptable behaviour. AFAIK, I have no previous interactions with Jamie, and I have no idea what this dispute is about and frankly I DGAF. But I find it deeply disappointing you as an experienced editor would excuse canvassing like this. Consider that it's actual Jamie you're likely to harm by doing this, since there's a fair chance if Jamie keeps trying such nonsense, they will find themselves blocked. Nil Einne (talk) 13:53, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, even if Jamie was completely wrong and there was absolutely no reason to believe you'd provide a "voice of reason" given your previous interactions, it's a moot point. The issue is whether Jamie notified you because they believed you were more likely to share their viewpoint than a random editor, and their comment illustrates that they did. In fact, it's hardly uncommon editors are wrong with their preconceptions about how an editor would view an issues, there are many times when an editor says something like "I'm not going to take part in that discussion since you tried to canvas me, but if I had, I'd actually disagree with you". An editor being wrong about the views of the editors they're trying to canvass has never been a significant factor in whether something is viewed as harmful canvassing, instead it's whether the editor notified people in a manner which was clearly not neutral, such as notifying editors they believed, even if incorrectly, would be more likely than a random editor to share their PoV. Nil Einne (talk) 14:03, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

(Of course as Raladic said, the comment was also worded in a non-neutral way so could never be considered a neutral non canvassing notification even if they were notifying everyone who'd participating in the previous discussions or whatever. ) Nil Einne (talk) 14:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote on that talk page? IMO it doesn't take much to be perceived as "a voice of reason" there. You just have to say something like "Here's how Wikipedia usually handles questions like this" when other editors are invoking COI to keep unsourced, WP:CHALLENGED material in an article, or saying "I object to any edit made by an COI editor" in an effort to stop all edits by someone with a different POV, when the immediately preceding comments are about which types of edits are explicitly allowed under our rules, and removing your own (allegedly) COI-tainted edit is one of them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:22, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm probably the one who did the most defending of JamieBrown2011 at the article and they never wrote me. North8000 (talk) 19:34, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing Firstly, thank you for providing a voice of reason over at the ANI. 2ndly, sorry for the drama me posting over here caused you, I see they have attacked you for something I did. 3rdly, I see over at the COIN noticeboard, two editors have created a narrative that they are simply trying to prevent the ICOC page from being whitewashed by myself and MV. I think that is a false narrative. As you know I was the first editor to put the court cases into the article. I believe the ICOC should be accountable for sins its members and leaders commit. Accountability can only make organisations and churches better. However, the opposite appears to be happening. Court cases that have been dismissed over a year ago require pages and pages of discussion to convince certain editors to remove them from the LEAD of the article. No consensus is required to label myself and others as COI editors, while "consensus is required" to remove the labelling. When articles are used to accuse the ICOC of cult like behaviour, (some of them from 30 years ago) and other articles are presented where mistakes are acknowledged and changes made, (even apologies made from organisations that previously labelled the ICOC a cult), there is huge resistance to present those perspectives alongside the accusations. Those objecting even saying they are trying to prevent "whitewashing the article" while in my view tarring and feathering a group sincerely trying to learn from its mistakes. So, all that said, I need advice as to whether to make this case over at the COIN noticeboard or simply let it go and let my arguments and editing make that clear over at the ICOC Talk page...JamieBrown2011 (talk) 08:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent discussions. All I required for the LA lawsuit to be removed from the lead was a reliable secondary source which attested to that. Once one was presented along with the edit removing it from the lead I presented zero objection to that change. TarnishedPath^talk 09:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

@JamieBrown2011, I don't think you need to make a case against anyone at COIN. Ordinary POV pushing isn't a conflict of interest. While trying to present a religious organization in a less favorable light is sometimes motivated by personal animosity, that doesn't mean there is a real-world relationship between the editor and the subject, and without a relationship, there can be no COI. Therefore I think this is a problem for Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard rather than COIN – assuming the assistance of a noticeboard is wanted at all, which I'm not sure would be helpful at this stage.

BTW, you might try Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library if you're trying to find more sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you on both accounts, those are useful redirects. FYI, I didn't intend to open a new COIN complaint but rather respond over at the current discussion opened by TP. I will try and make my stance clear at the ICOC Talk page, and with much more level headed editors looking on after the recent ANI discussions, hopefully the intimidation tactics and behaviour will improve 🙏 JamieBrown2011 (talk) 08:23, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

If you have capacity, you thoughts would be valued Talk:International Churches of Christ#NPOV JamieBrown2011 (talk) 12:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

WT:MEDRS and Khelif

Thank you for your recent comments on Does WP:MEDRS apply to medical information about individuals? Just to be clear about the "context", there was no specific content that I wanted to include in Imane Khelif - I had no particular interest in the topic and have never intended to include that Khelid is, or according to some may be, intersex. But in discussing a different although related issue (whether to mention the existence of a public debate about her eligibility to compete with women), I made a hypothetical argument [2] that was seen as violating WP:BLP and WP:MEDRS. As there was no real dispute about either content, sources or policies, I am afraid that WikiProject Medicine could not have done anything to prevent such an outcome... My interest in the thread at WT:MEDRS is now mainly theoretical, so to speak. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:03, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I think this is a case of WP:Bring me a rock; others might call it Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing. If I don't want to have any information in that article about the possibility that Khelif might be intersex or if I want to tell The Truth™ about her being a biological female, then of course I'm going to claim that the highest possible sourcing standards apply. Every experienced editor knows that "We are WP:REQUIRED by the WP:UPPERCASE policy to do this" is far more convincing than "Well, on balance, I think we should..." WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

yep. In this case POV pushing was not even very "civil", actually... Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I suspect that this article will be easier to write in a couple of years, assuming Khelif doesn't retire. Either the rules will change and we'll have sources connecting that rule change to her, or she'll be subjected to sex testing and disqualified from future competitions, and we'll have sources making definitive statements that she is able to compete in only in competitions with self-attestation requirements for intersex people, or she'll be subjected to sex testing and allowed to compete in the more restrictive competitions, and we'll have sources making definitive statements that if she's accepted by "Boxing R US", which requires sex testing and doesn't allow intersex people, then she's definitely not intersex. It's just hard right now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Infant school FAC candidacy

Hi @WhatamIdoing, I have answered your comments on the infant school nomination. I was wondering if you would like to support it. Llewee (talk) 13:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Single Purpose Accounts

Hi,

A few hours ago you pointed me in the direction of WP:SPA.

In that essay it says: The general test for an SPA is: A user who appears to focus their edits on a particular article or related set of articles in a way which may cause other users to question whether that person's edits are neutral and are reasonably free of promotion, advocacy and personal agendas. Such users may not be aware of project norms, may have engaged in improper uses of an account, and might not be here to build an encyclopedia (my emphasis).

That being the case, I wonder if you could please clarify for me how, as per your suggestion, I could be credibly accused of being an SPA.

You went on to say that doesn't mean that you're a bad or unwanted editor, or that there's anything wrong with your contributions, right?. But looking at the 'general test' above, it does seem that that is what the term SPA means.

I don't believe I have ever edited in a way that might cause other users to question whether [my] edits are neutral and are reasonably free of promotion, advocacy and personal agendas, nor do I believe that anyone could credibly accuse me of having done so.

So, to be honest, I believe I am due an apology (which I would be more than happy to accept here rather than in a public forum).

To be clear, I'm not particularly offended by the suggestion, as it seems to be obviously untrue and to have been made while you were under a misapprehension about the meaning of the term 'SPA'. However, I'd be grateful for clarification from you on that point.

Kind regards, Axad12 (talk) 04:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Axad12, This page is already a tolerably public forum.

I think you have perhaps developed an unfortunately partial view of Wikipedia:Single-purpose account (an essay, about which see Wikipedia:The difference between policies, guidelines and essays).

While SPA is regularly used as a smear word, especially at AFD and ANI, it's not always a bad thing. The best new editors are often SPAs, because they're trying to improve Wikipedia's coverage about a subject that interests them enough that they have learned something about it. New editors are never aware of the project norms, etc. (and we do a very bad job of teaching them), and knowing something about the subject often looks like "promotion, advocacy and personal agendas" to people who don't know anything about the subject. I refuse to apologize for you obviously having subject-matter interests and subject-specific knowledge. Instead, I invite you to consider whether you should be winning friends and influencing people at not only at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess but also at Wikipedia:WikiProject Boxing. Or at least not spending so much time on the drama boards, which is a highly effective method of giving yourself a skewed view of Wikipedia and often results in unhappiness.

Secondly, there is no actual rule against someone editing only one article or articles on one subject. For example, we've crossed paths before at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine. While there are some polymath editors who can contribute competently across a wide range of subjects, I'm usually happy to see our healthcare editors stick to what they know, and for non-healthcare folks to come ask questions (instead of, e.g., assuming that whatever they found on some website is correct).

On the more general subject, you might want to add a few tools to your account. I'd particularly recommend the "userinfo" script that you'll see on line 18 in m:User:WhatamIdoing/global.js. You can copy it to Special:MyPage/common.js if you want it to work only at the English Wikipedia, or to m:Special:MyPage/global.js if you want it to work at all the wikis (e.g., Commons). You'll know it's working if you install it (note that the warning about malicious scripts is automatic and universal; search the archives of Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) if you're worried), follow the directions to reload the page to activate the script, and come back to this page and look just under the article title at the top, where you should find a note about how long I've been editing and some other things. (You can copy any of the items there, but I recommend this one. If you have questions about what the others do, then feel free to ask me.)

If you aren't already using WP:NAVPOPS, then that's easiest to enable in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets (sixth item). I can see that you haven't used Wikipedia:Twinkle, and that's also in prefs, five items below NAVPOPS. These two tools are extremely popular with experienced editors, and I think you will find them useful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, but the general test for an SPA that I mentioned above was located in the link that you had pointed me towards. Since you had pointed me towards it I was working on the assumption that it was a test that you felt might be valid. Under the circumstances I'd genuinely be very grateful if you would clarify whether or not my activity at Wikipedia might cause other users to question whether [my] edits are neutral and are reasonably free of promotion, advocacy and personal agendas. Much of my time is spent at COIN, which would clearly be deeply inappropriate if my editing could be described in that way.

With regards to your broader comments above, I do agree with your point about drama boards and, indeed, I can confirm the truth of what you say from my own experience.

Personally I'm not sure that I really consider COIN to be a drama board (although admittedly it does occasionally veer in that direction). Most of my activity there over the last few months has been either (a) preventing COI/promo editing in a relatively simple and matter of fact way, or (b) assisting COI-lite type editors who just need a little guidance about how to work within the guidelines. To be honest I find those kinds of work quite rewarding and an area where I can usefully contribute.

ANI, on the other hand, is a different thing altogether. I try to only go there when something arising from COIN needs admin oversight. Otherwise it is a learning experience. For example, recently I've learnt from 2 very similar ANI threads that there is little point in intervening in content disputes where one side is accusing the other of uncivil behaviour. It seems it is pretty much predictable that the other side of the dispute will appear and continue their uncivil behaviour (and the content dispute) and there is no point in trying to intervene and thus putting oneself in the crossfire. Or, at the very least, there is no point in me doing so as I lack the experience to resolve such issues.

I think my contributions in chess and boxing are pretty much over. In chess I've significantly extended some stubs, to the point where I basically wrote the whole article. However, those articles are for the chess openings where I have the necessary expertise to do so. I don't think there are any further chess opening articles where I can meaningfully contribute. I've not edited in boxing for some time. Unfortunately the early boxing articles (where my interest lies) are usually drawn from very poor unreliable recent source material rather than from the extensive late 18th/early 19th century source material. Resolving that problem would be a huge exercise equivalent to cleaning out the Augean stables. I have tried to do my best to increase awareness of that old source material, e.g. by providing direct links to online versions and by discussing it on the relevant talk pages. Unfortunately those Wikipedia articles are very obscure subject matter and I just can't justify the time that it would take to sort them out.

To be entirely honest, I consider walking away from Wikipedia on an almost daily basis, simply due to being disillusioned. I don't know if it will be today, tomorrow, next week or next year.

Many thanks for your assistance above, unfortunately I think I am probably just running down my time at the moment. Axad12 (talk) 06:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

To address the disillusionment, I suggest finding something that you want to achieve. Good content will outlive us. Do you want to make a List of boxers in the 19th century? Get the best book about chess, and mine it to add as many refs to as many chess-related articles as you can? (I usually find e-books handy for this, because you can search for keywords.) I've had wiki-friends whose goals were complete discographies for a particular set, or a tiny stub for every single (notable) skin disease. The goal is to identify something that you think you would be able to look back on, decades from now, and say: I really did contribute something to the world.

As for whether you could be accused: Anyone can be accused. You've probably noticed that disputes on wiki happen have a weird, stylized WP:UPPERCASE (← read this one) form. That is, if you say something normal, like "I think this article would be improved by condensing it to the main points and leaving out minor details", nobody cares. You're supposed to say something that looks more like "We are WP:REQUIRED to WP:SUMMARIZE this because of WP:SIZE WP:RULES because all this WP:TRIVIA is WP:NOT WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC". Since Wikipedia:Nobody reads the directions, you can often put any shortcut in there that you'd like without anyone noticing. It is not unusual for someone to confidently assert that "WP:SHORTCUT says ____", when that page actually says the opposite. I re-wrote WP:NOTNEWS the other day because I have gotten tired of editors claiming that it prohibits them from adding up-to-date information because it's "only" in the news, and NOTNEWS prohibits us from citing(!) newspaper articles. (In my not-inconsiderable experience, it usually takes two years for a policy change to get noticed, so mark your calendar for 2026, when you can expect someone to quote the new version at me, as if I didn't know what it says. In the meantime, please let me know if you see any evidence that this re-write screws up Wikipedia:Recentism and WP:MEDPOP.)

Back to the main point: Yes, you could be accused, especially by someone who thinks that slinging around some shortcuts will help them win a dispute. Yes, that might even look credible to someone who is already looking for an excuse to complain about you and cares more about 'winning' than about honesty. But the fact is, you will probably encounter such people. About 800,000 registered editors make an account each year. This survey says that 40% of adults admitted to telling a lie during the last 24 hours. Some lies are told on wiki, and half-truths – the carefully omitted context, the partially quoted sentence, the accidentally-on-purpose "forgotten" date – seem to be especially popular on wiki. Additionally, people just honestly do forget things or fail to notice them. For example, a (now former) admin claimed for several years that I opposed WP:ACTRIAL. I was the second-ever editor to express support for it, and I helped draft the original plan for the trial. He'd just forgotten about that. These things happen.

I don't think you should worry about this. These things can be cleared up if they become important. (For example, I eventually dug up the diffs and dropped them into one of his discussions about it, and once he was conclusively and perhaps embarrassingly proved wrong, he shut up about it.) I think you should think about the things you can do that actually make you feel happy and make you feel like you're making a positive difference, and do those. And find some wiki-friends (e.g., in a WikiProject), because when you run into problems, then having someone to help can make a huge difference to your outlook. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your very kind comments above.

You are so right. I derive far more satisfaction from the 7 chess articles that I authored (attracting between them >250,000* views per annum) than I derive from preventing some vain nobody from adding puff to their own Wikipedia article. Or indeed from arguing with uncivil POV pushers, self-citing spammers, LLM users, liars, and the various other types of disruptive flotsam and jetsam who unfortunately often inhabit this site.

I'm very grateful that you've reminded me of this.

(*: 250,000 isn't a huge number in the global scheme of things, but it's way more than enough to have made writing those articles worthwhile.)

I do actually have an idea for adding some new content. I will endeavour to spend more time researching that and less time on things that tend to aggravate me.

Many thanks, Axad12 (talk) 06:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Congratulations on your achievement. That's a quarter million times that people are getting helped every single year. That is no small thing.

I hope that you have a happy time creating that new content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

@Axad12, I just played with some numbers, and I thought you might be interested in knowing that 250,000 page views, spread across 7 articles, is in the top 2% of all Wikipedia articles for traffic. If you want to compare the articles individually, then in big round numbers, you can estimate:

• 200K page views per year: article is in the top 0.5%
• 100K page views per year: top 1%
• 50K page views per year: top 1.5%
• 35K page views per year: top 2%
• 10K page views per year: top 5%
• 3.5K page views per year: top 10%
• 1K page views per year: top 20%
• 500 page views per year: top 25%
• 100 page views per year: top 40%
• 50 page views per year: top 50%

The most common number of page views per year in the sample set that @BilledMammal created a while ago was: just one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:22, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks for this. Very interesting and much appreciated. Axad12 (talk) 06:34, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

The COI noticeboard...

I noticed this edit at the COI noticeboard where you said "I'd be astonished if Wikipedia:Featured articles#Religion, mysticism and mythology was written only by people who had no beliefs about those subjects. Actually, I'd be surprised if any of the FAC noms had no religious beliefs related to the subjects they dedicated so many hours to researching and writing about." - of the 134 FAs in that category - I am the editor who nominated 33 of them for FA. And I helped with a few others on that list. However, I'm not a Catholic, nor even a Christian. I'm just a person who studied medieval history and thus got interested in those topics by that route. You can't assume that just because an editor worked on a religious topic that they have religious beliefs that correlate to the topic. Ealdgyth (talk) 18:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think I am making any assumptions about what the beliefs are, but I am including, e.g., ex-Catholics as being "beliefs related to the subjects", in the sense that a belief against something is as much a belief as a belief in favor of something.

Thank you for the lovely articles you have given us. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Advice

Can you offer me advice on dealing with this editor? Emiya1980 (talk) 14:14, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I wonder whether you could tell me more about what your interests are on Wikipedia. I tend to run across your name in discussions about changing lead images. Is there anything else you like to do? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:06, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Jedi

	Rescued a Padawan
	Thank you for helping me learn how the Wikipedia world works and giving very helpful suggestions. Music907 (talk) 05:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

This simply is not true...

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

"Earlier this year, you made false COI accusations about an editor – based on off-wiki information that turned out to be incomplete in important ways – that resulted in that editor feeling strongly pressured to disclose the highly personal situation that led to them being kicked out of the religion they were raised in." just not true, there was nothing false about the COI accusation and the off-wiki information was not incomplete (that would suggest to me that you do not know what off-wiki information we're talking about). You need to retract these false claims, immediately. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

You posted material that at minimum very strongly implied that editor was a member of a given religious organization, when that was false. The person was not a member of that religion. You are entitled to have your own view of your actions, and even to consider yourself a Defender of the Wiki's Purity if you want to, but I think you hurt a vulnerable person, and I, too, am entitled to my own view of your actions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

You misunderstand, the alledged COI was not with the religious organization... It was with the BYU library and the Association for Mormom letters. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Which is an allegation of belonging to a religious organization. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

The Association for Mormon Letters is not a religious organization... and the allegations were that they were a former employee of the BYU library not a current one. Both allegations were true. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:16, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

A huge portion of that discussion was about whether BYU library students should be assumed to be members of the sponsoring religion, and therefore should be considered to have a religious COI in a way that a student employee of a secular library, doing identical research on local historical figures, would not be. Therefore pushing the students to disclose past associations was inherently an act of pushing them to disclose their religious affiliation – and that editor is not a member of that religion. See also False light. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:45, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Different students in different programs, this editor was not a participant in the BYU library wikipedia editing program under discussion. The Association for Mormon Letters COI was also the more signficant one, it was the one which was current. People don't have to be Mormons or students to work for the BYU library, so disclosing former or current employment by the BYU library doesn't disclose either religious affiliation or student status. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

In the context of a discussion in which someone apparently using your account says "You'd be expelled if you left the church[10], presumably that would end any student employment", it is difficult to see how demanding to know whether a person worked for that library is materially different from demanding to know what their religion is.

But as I said: You are entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to my approval. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

This seems to be moving the goalposts massively... "Earlier this year, you made false COI accusations about an editor – based on off-wiki information that turned out to be incomplete in important ways – that resulted in that editor feeling strongly pressured to disclose the highly personal situation that led to them being kicked out of the religion they were raised in." is a false claim, you need to retract it. The COI accusations were true and the information was not incomplete in important ways. The editor disclosed their highly personal situation in an apparent attempt to deflect from the valid COI concerns, that was after just straight up lying about it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

The COI accusation was false to the extent that it is making a claim about the editor's religion, and it was based on incomplete information because you did not know that the editor's religion had changed or why.

Or let me rephrase that: If you knew before posting that this editor had been kicked out of their religion for being trans, and you decided to pressure them to disclose their religious and gender history anyway, then I don't want you to tell me that, because that would have been despicable behavior, and I would rather not know that about anyone, even if it's true. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

There was no pressure to disclose their religious history, whether or not they were a member of the LDS church was not relevent... Whether or not they were a former employee of the Harold E. Lee Library and a current member of the Association for Mormon letters was. The COI claim was not a claim about their religion, it was a claim about professional conflicts of interest. TLDR its possible to have a religious COI, but I did not alledge that this editor had a religious COI... I alledged a pair of professional COI. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that you are very good at predicting the effects of social pressure on other people. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:56, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

"you made false COI accusations about an editor" put me under immense social pressure... False COI accusations are just about the worst thing you can level against someone... And I did not do that, the COI accusations were true and this was confirmed by admin investigation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:04, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Imagine that someone says "I accuse you of working for the Republocrat marketing team. We just spent a thousand words establishing that they basically only hire people who are registered members of the Republocrat political party, but please note: I'm not technically accusing you of being a member of the political party. I'm technically only accusing you of having a job that is basically only available to members."

Would that sound convincing to you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding something, BYU will hire employees and accept students who are not Mormons. The job was not basically only available to members. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:13, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

We had just established in that discussion that there were almost no non-Mormon students. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

If thats the way you want to look at it I'm also technically accusing them of being a US citizen or legal resident... Becuase the job is basically only available to US citizens and legal residents. But thats just not how it works... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

That's not how it works – in your personal opinion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

So in your opinion I am "technically accusing them of being a US citizen or legal resident" and that doing so is inappropriate? How would one then make an employment based COI claim? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

The student employment rules are different in the US, but yes, when a person's physical location or nationality is sensitive, then you really have to respect their privacy and not publicly post that information on wiki. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest says:

"If private information must be shared to resolve a COI issue, it may be emailed to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org. Follow the advice in WP:OUTING: "Only the minimum information necessary should be conveyed and the minimum number of people contacted." The priority should be to avoid unnecessary privacy violations."

You did not avoid unnecessary privacy violations. You did not convey the information to the minimum number of people. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I have never said I handled the situation excellently, but the COI allegations were not false. When you tell lies about me it hurts my feelings, especially when you refuse to retract or strike those lies. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Whether your accusations were partially false is apparently something that reasonable people can disagree about. Or at least, the two of us can. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:33, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

You did not say that they were partially false, you said they were false point blank and you said that they were based on incomplete evidence. You can't just move the goal posts a bit, either you can support your statement or you can not. You also need to actually say which part was false, so far everything you've brought up as false hasn't turned out to be so... My allegations were true. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

When you tell lies ... those lies.

It seems to me that you are hurting another user’s feelings (again?). Would you consider retract or strike that? --Dustfreeworld (talk) 23:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

If you can demonstrate that they are not lies I will retract the statement. In general telling lies hurts the feelings of the person being lied about, not the person telling the lies. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I think this is enough. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:52, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

And let us be clear about the more fundamental point: The way you handled that hurt real people's feelings.

It is possible to address COI without hurting people's feelings, but that's not the approach you took. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

You didn't accuse me of hurting feelings, you accused me of making false COI allegations, that deeply and profoundly hurt my feelings... Thats why I'm here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Definitions of some English words

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Of course I can demonstrate that they are not “lies” (as said).

They are the opinion (“own view of your actions”) of a Wikipedia editor.

An editor can be either right or wrong on an issue. Even if, I say if, they are wrong, that doesn’t mean they are lying. “Lying” means what they said differs from what they believed. (E.g., I think he’s ugly, but I tell him he’s handsome.)

I hope people can acknowledge that they maybe hurting different editors’ feelings repeatedly, and can avoid doing so in the future. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

me brain aint brainin

My brain during the golden years

Hiya. My brain does not brain today so I have a question.

WP:EDITCON and H:FIES lead people to believe that all edits must have an editsummary. I think the intended meaning is something like "all edits should be explained in advance or upon request" meaning "communication is required". If one writes "All edits should have an editsummary" then people will still parse that as: "editsummaries are required".

I started a section over at Help_talk:Edit_summary#Editsummaries_are_not_required but then my brain shut down and refused to co-operate. Since you are a wordsmith and not afraid of PaGs, would you be so kind to take a look? Thanks, Polygnotus (talk) 13:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)