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

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 6.

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Just wanted to take a moment to say how much I appreciate your contributions! Helping me find my feet in medical topics, always standing up for new users in community discussions, keeping an eye on a large swath of important medical articles. Thanks for all you're doing :). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:41, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words. I am always happy to see what you're doing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:41, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will second that, Cheers · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 17:04, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe join us over at Talk:Zak Smith. Not my area of expertise. Polygnotus (talk) 21:21, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that I can help with that mess. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:59, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you. I am not sure I can either, and this rabbit hole is real deep. Polygnotus (talk) 22:01, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You recently removed the wikitable formatting I was using to create an indent with {{Reflist-talk}}, and only wrote "WP:LISTGAP" in your edit summary.[1] Could you clarify how the wikitable fell afoul of WP:LISTGAP? Also, would you know of an alternate way I could add an indent on {{Reflist-talk}} in a way that would be acceptable? — AFC Vixen 🦊 13:38, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anything that breaks up the consecutive flow of lists (all * or all : in a row) is a LISTGAP problem. Unfortunately, AFAICT that includes {{reflist-talk}} pretty much no matter how you stick it in the middle of a discussion. When you're just listing sources, I'd suggest just listing them (i.e., remove the <ref>...</ref> and just make an ordinary list). When you're using them to discuss same article text – well, we're probably just going to have to tolerate a LISTGAP.

The main reason that I removed the table formatting is because there's no benefit to having a single long, narrow column of refs that everyone has to scroll past. On desktop/laptop devices, that leaves most of the screen empty. On a mobile device, it may not align with the amount of space on the user's screen (e.g., if they have a narrow screen and a large font size). As a general rule, it's best to minimize width-related formatting and let each person's browser figure out how to display it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:28, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would using an {{Outdent}} like this

and putting an asterisk before both of these lines still violate WP:LISTGAP? I'm thinking I could simply force a discussion back to the left of the screen to avoid a full-width {{Reflist-talk}} being placed in between three-, four-, five-, ect. indent messages, and confusing the order of discussion and making who's replying to who unclear. "[Leaving] most of the screen empty" was purposeful to avoid this, for the record. — AFC Vixen 🦊 03:36, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what it looked like. Why did you think that this huge expanse of empty space was going to help people figure out who is replying to whom?

I don't know for sure, but I have heard that the outdent template doesn't actually help with LISTGAP matters. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:01, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This might be what's causing confusion, then. Here's how it looked on my end,[1] which honestly makes more sense as the product of the two-column wikitable with a blank, small-width left column that I had wrote up. It appears identical to this on all the browsers and devices I use. — AFC Vixen 🦊 04:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A single-column table with formatting of

| style="width:20px"|

should not be capable of producing a full-width table. {{Reflist-talk|colwidth=20em}} by itself could have done that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:51, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, the point was to indent the entirety of {{Reflist-talk}} exactly like in the screenshots I linked, so that it's at the same indentation as my message. The normal : before a message does not work on {{Reflist-talk}}. |colwidth= only creates columns within the reflist. Please understand that I'm trying to achieve what's exactly depicted in the screenshots. — AFC Vixen 🦊 05:02, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, I think that if you wanted to achieve that, you shouldn't have used the <ref>...</ref> tags at all. If you had no little blue clicky numbers in your first comment, then you wouldn't have needed a reference block. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:19, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{|
| style="width:20px"| 
| {{Reflist-talk|colwidth=20em}}
|}

I guess I'm also confused as to why you're describing this as a "single-column table", when it's clearly two columns. If I were to turn on the wikitable class and put just plain text in the cells, you can clearly see it's a two column table:

— AFC Vixen 🦊 05:20, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. I misread the formatting. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:55, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how I would find these people you talk about. Do you have opinions? Efficacity (talk) 03:11, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Has anybody agreed with you? If so, then that's the person to talk to. If not, then it might be best to just give it up as a Sisyphean task. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:02, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you think of anything other than that you may view yourself as being a yeoman. I think "this task" as you put it is slightly doable with you and one other person. Efficacity (talk) 05:37, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that telling editors not to put the name of a criminal in an article about their crime is a bad idea.

If you want to create a rule telling editors to do this bad idea, you should work with people who think this is a good idea.

You've already had several discussions about this now. If, at this point, you don't know the name of any editor that thinks this is a good idea, then you should give up on this bad idea, because you will do a lot of work, only to find that all the editors reject your proposal and you have wasted all of your time and effort. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:59, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you missed the point. I have said mentioning the perpetrator of these incidents is alright. What is not is emphasizing references to them such as bolding. Efficacity (talk) 17:09, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And if you don't know the name of any editor who agrees with you yet, then I think you should give up on this idea, because zero support now = failed proposal then. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:11, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found someone else and there could be quite a number of others. Efficacity (talk) 17:14, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Go talk to them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:25, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you agree on some of what is being proposed, that would be helpful. It looks like you contribute often at the village pump. Is that right? Efficacity (talk) 21:43, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Please keep edit summaries objective and respectful. Saying people are "whining" is not appreciated. Thanks. — W.andrea (talk) 23:55, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would you rather that I said some editors "complain in a childish or petulant manner"? I think you've been editing long enough to know that's the reality.

You should go self-revert, because when someone follows a shortcut, they're supposed to be able to see the hatnote for that specific shortcut. Putting the hatnote higher in the page doesn't get the right information to the right person. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:20, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather you didn't mention it at all, since it's not relevant to the edit. Your new edit summary is much better, thanks!

I'm fine with keeping the hatnote next to the shortcut, but I still think you misunderstood my original edit. As I wrote, WP:ONUS in fact redirects to the section, not the paragraph. So I moved the {{redirect}} tag to the spot where WP:ONUS actually redirects to (the section). I would have moved the {{shortcut}} too, except that it's specific to that paragraph. Perhaps WP:ONUS should be retargeted to the paragraph (e.g. Wikipedia:Verifiability#WP:ONUS). It doesn't matter to me, I'm just putting it out there.

— W.andrea (talk) 14:03, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have retargeted the redirect. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PAYRATES. How do you like me now? :D ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 11:57, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I like it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:59, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Timeless, forever relevant. Thx for your improvements. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 16:16, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind an example pay slip for United Kingdom - Salaried (Americentrism bad), but I wouldn't know how to do that. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 16:19, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the typical UK pay slip looks like, either.

I added a custom hatnote to Wikipedia:Scam warning. If you hate it, then remove it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:41, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hate it, so I removed it. It's a humorous essay, and you're killing the buzz with serious stuff. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 19:53, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"This essay isn't meant to be taken seriously." That would include any hatnotes. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 19:59, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had some concerns about killing to buzz, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:04, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I think we get each other. Alice's Restaurant. ...he took out the toilet paper so I couldn't bend the bars, roll the toilet paper out the window, slide down the roll, and have an ess-cape. And father-rapers. Still killing me after 55 years and about a hundred listens. Arlo will be missed by many. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 20:22, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You could set up a whole table of base pay rates, using Wikipedia:Service awards. "Most Plusquamperfect Looshpah Laureate" has a ring to it, doesn't it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:34, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll think on it. Right now it's pure, concise (one-minute read), polished to a high sheen, and damn near perfect (see latest). I've about run out of even the tiny improvements. I'm reluctant to mess with it at this point, but that could change. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 10:55, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandruss, I've been thinking about Alice's Restaurant and a hypothetical List of restaurants in songs. Imagine that it's a bare list of names (red, blue, and unlinked together), with nothing cited. This is below-standard work, of course, but: Should we encourage tagging editors to focus on content that realistically might be wrong/unverifiable? Should we say that the best practice in such cases is to go to the linked article, find a source (if any) there, check it out, and copy it over? Or should we treat them all the same, as if something that can be verified by clicking through to the Wikipedia article is equally bad as something that will require a determined search?

(I've also got the Mercedes Benz (song) on the brain today.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:12, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it's not supported by a reliable source, it would stay out. Similar to what we're doing at Paraprosdokian. Beyond that, you're above my unpay grade. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 19:20, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not cited and someone wants to CHALLENGE it, then it stays tagged or removed.

I think my question is more like: Should we ask mass tagger–blankers to focus on the stuff that's potentially problematic, instead of the stuff that is merely in technical violation?

Or even: For a simple list like this, is the best practice to copy a source from the linked article instead of tagging/blanking the material? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:39, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not cited and someone wants to CHALLENGE it, then it stays tagged or removed. - Not sure I follow (there's my unpay grade, again). It goes without saying that unchallenged content will stay in. What made you think I was the best choice for a sounding board on this? ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 19:45, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of you because I was thinking of "Alice's Restaurant". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:21, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh of course. The connection between Alice's Restaurant and proper handling of a list article. LOL. Yes sir Officer Obie, I cannot tell a lie. I put that envelope under that garbage. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 20:25, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, WhatamIdoing. Just so we don't accidentally duplicate effort, I wanted to let you know I am building Template:Infobox source reliability, per a suggestion of yours at WT:RSP. More fields coming, so I labeled it 'under construction', and the /doc is incomplete. Doesn't mean you can't try it out, just be aware that something might break until it stabilizes. I'm not very knowledgeable about Infobox construction, so I'm learning as I go, but the UX and optics may not be as appealing as one might like. Feel free to add feedback to its Talk page, and after I take down the construction banner, to edit it as you wish. The only page that uses it so far, is Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/all/California Globe, also under construction. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 05:18, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'd been thinking about trying out a direct use of Template:Infobox, with custom labels. I'll look at yours later (today, I hope). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:53, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It will certainly need more work, but I've removed the 'under construction' tag for now. You can see it in use at four converted landing pages; they are the ones tagged with the ⓘ icon at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Index (two B's, and two C's). If you want to play with changes to the template, please use its sandbox. Your feedback would be welcome, either at Template talk, or at WT:RSP, or here.

My next step is probably to create a preload file for an Edit template link, to help streamline conversion of the landing pages from a single table row to whatever the new format will look like through semi-automation. I think your Infobox idea will play a big part in that, so it would be wise to get the Infobox, as well as whatever suggested landing page layout we want somewhat stable, so that when we start converting using an Edit preload, we won't have to go back and change them all again when the format changes. Which isn't to say some format is inviolate, either; but it would be good to have a reasonably stable layout we are happy with as jumping-off point before starting conversion of lots of pages. I recently became aware of Module:Params, which looks somewhere between daunting and scary, but it may be of assistance in creating a more powerful preload page than I am used to, which might allow parameterizing parts of the preload so we could substitute in certain tokens, such as, say, domain names into parts of the preload text. If it can do that, it would speed conversion even more, so it's worth looking into. Mathglot (talk) 09:12, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As you saw, I put together an example at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/all/Deutsche Welle. The first paragraph is a simplified version of the article's lead. The simple summary of the discussion is word-for-word from RSP (even though, in that instance, I don't really like it).

Now I'm off to look at your infobox, so I can see what we did differently. (I didn't want your ideas to influence mine.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:10, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just passing by. Not sure if it is helpful, however the {{Preload}} template uses Module:Params to append preload arguments to the edit URL. So, to treat all positive numeric parameters as preload arguments this should do: {{#invoke:params|sequential|backpurging|0|0|filling_the_gaps|setting|ih|&preloadparams%5b%5d{{=}}|magic_for_each_value|urlencode|QUERY}}. For any other question about the module I should be able to help. --Grufo (talk) 21:18, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to trouble you, I'm just a wee editor and I saw a couple of your recent posts. Would you mind having a look over here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tylenol_(brand)&action=history? Editors big and small seem to be taking a chainsaw to the article in disputes over the recent acetaminophen news, and my call for consensus on talk was promptly ignored by one individual, and I think another may be waving a MAHA study at me. Having recently received a warning for edit warring in a vandalism incident, and with fish much bigger than me involved, I will likely withdraw now. Thanks Patternbuffered (talk) 00:08, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the page has been restricted to experienced editors, and that there's an agreement that Trump's sloppy use of the brand name, when he means the drug regardless of what name it's sold under, should be addressed on other pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:32, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, Just wanted to send you a thank you note regarding your comments. In particular "I strongly encourage whoever wrote the "religious and philosophical" principle to read our article on Non-science and then correct the self-contradiction in that principle. It's ironic that this is an echo of the novel legal definition of philosophical belief in the UK Equality Act 2010, which is the very thing that set this train in motion and the reason why any sincerely held belief in the UK is now fair game, no matter whether it stands in conflict with other human rights on discrimination, and what paved the way for what was the locus of the case, versus the rest of the worlds legal frameworks that intentionally leave it undefined to be able to balance it against other human rights principles to be able to restrict philosophical beliefs that are out of proportion with human rights. Here's to hoping that PD 11 doesn't pass as it is like you pointed out.

While we didn't always agree on things, I always appreciated your thoughtful approach. Wishing you all the best. Life is better with cookies, Here are a few to share. Raladic (talk) 03:23, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the cookies.

I think that PD11 could be re-written to say something sensible (e.g., perhaps it might refer to "healthcare topics" instead of "scientific topics"), but I'm unhappy with the current version, especially because it says that articles shouldn't include non-scientific content in the second sentence and then says that non-scientific content can be included in the very next sentence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:36, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you mention "the idea that gender identity should have primacy over biological sex and gender expression, came out of Queer Studies". I agree that these ideas are based on philosophy, not science. But the philosophies at play are Transhumanism and Transfeminism, though you might consider that horribly pedantic.

Queer theory in the 90's said something different: Gender is a performance, when you go to sleep at night, you don't have a gender. It's something you do, not something you are. Queer people, (meaning Gay), "queer gender" by not playing along by gender roles, thus, making it easier for everyone else to break those rules too. This is a simplistic explanation, they get really deep into the postmodern ideas that "words change reality" and therefore "performance changes reality". But this was all about social rules and roles and didn't have anything about body modification or legally changing ones sex on government documents, you find that elsewhere.

That idea that gender should replace sex comes from Martine Rothblatt to justify Self ID Law. Rothblatt published "The Apartheid of Sex: A Manifesto on the Freedom of Gender" in the 1990s. The 2nd edition is "From Transgender to Transhuman: A Manifesto On the Freedom Of Form". The idea in the book is that dividing humans by sex is oppression, and for humanity to be free of oppression, people must be allowed to "explore" their gender, which is a spectrum. Then, they report this gender to the government, and it legally becomes their sex. In this framing, only "bona fide" medical purposes would be an exception. People usually classify this as Transhumanism, because the idea in the book is to use being transgender as a way to solidify body modification as a human right in law... to usher in the future of human evolution. The book is extremely influential and people use the ideas in this book constantly in arguments, without referencing it directly.

But the name everyone knows is Julia Serano. You'll find in academia in the 2000's, there was a real push to read minority view points in academia, and everyone starting readying Whipping Girl and Excluded. She is considered a transfeminist. I think people try to argue Serano's "subconscious sex" as a scientific fact or mainstream position, they just don't use her terminology when talking about it. But she rejects the "mind/body" separation of Rothblatt (In her book, Excluded), or the idea that Gender is Performance from Queer Theory [1]. She's considered a Transfeminist, you can read about her ideas here: (Whipping_Girl#Intrinsic_inclinations_model)

Sorry to write such a long comment. The ideas are philosophical, and honestly these ideas are the fringe ones, and shouldn't be treated as mainstream positions. I've accepted that it will just take time for people to step back and examine them critically, but it's frustrating we can't just report, neutrally, on the topic on Wikipedia. Denaar (talk) 12:44, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind long comments.

I've read that the philosophical idea that gender should have primacy over sex came out of queer studies in the 1970s, which appears to be two decades before transfeminism existed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:54, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of gender as performance actually dates back to feminist writing from the late-1940s. FYI. Simonm223 (talk) 17:59, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Freud was talking about the sociological meaning of 'sex' in 1905, and that's what we would call gender now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:10, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you removed BilledMammal from Wikipedia:Feedback request service, do you think it might be worth doing the same for SMcCandlish until they're back so their talk page doesn't get clogged up? Kowal2701 (talk) 23:08, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kowal2701, that's probably a good idea. You can do it yourself. Just leave a nice note for him so he'll know what happened and can revert it when he's back. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:14, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You might recall this response of mine to a comment you made at WT:RSP about needing a screenshot about the PEIS limit, and I suggested an annotated image or illustration of some sort and mentioned the WP:Graphics Lab. Just wanted to mention that I recently needed a "broken table" icon to help illustrate the message now visible at the top of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/1 and the other numbered subtables, and I think they did a great job, don't you? It's an iterative process, so you get to give feedback and see updated images, until you get something you like. See archive. I bet they could come up with something great for you, if you describe what you have in mind. Some of the volunteers there also have a creative streak, and if you don't know exactly what you are looking for, just describe the context of where it will be used, and let them try to imagine something. Some of them just like to execute precise requests, so it depends who's around when you ask. Mathglot (talk) 01:06, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I gave a description to Chat GPT, asking for a textual description of a diagram suitable to pass to GL, and here's what it came up with:

{{Infobox}}
{{Navbox|name=…}}
{{Citation|…}}
{{LongTemplate|param1=…}}
{{#invoke:Module|function}}

What do you think? It sounds a bit busy to me, so I would probably simplify it, but this is a starting point. Mathglot (talk) 01:24, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you need one image with three parts, or three images that you can display side by side? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:27, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This was an attempt to fill your need for some kind of image illustrating PEIS, so it's whatever you want. This might not suit your needs at all, and maybe you want something completely different in conception; I was just trying to brainstorm some ideas of how to render the PEIS concept. I like the left-to-right progression, the idea of a meter with a needle, some kind of container filling up, an then getting exceeded and what happens then (some templates not getting expanded). It's a somewhat complicated diagram description(but not anywhere nearly as complex as some others), but it's a somewhat complex concept, so I think a three-part, L-R design is appropriate. But how would you design an illustration for it? Mathglot (talk) 03:08, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's important to have the three bits, and I like your idea of a left-to-right progression. I like the idea of a Fuel gauge. I think what I'm saying is that if it'd be simpler, I don't care whether it's one big 800px-wide image or three images set side by side with {{multiple images}}. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:14, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. No, I think we should stick with the idea of one diagram, which the GL folks can certainly do, even if CGPT cannot. While we've been talking, I've been trying to get it to build an image, and I think it has been bumping up against its own internal limits, as it has been doing some strange things in the first three attempts; I'm making one last try. But I think if you just describe in words what you are imagining, the GL can build something. And then you can iterate, getting the design, sizes, style, and captions just right. It's kind of a joint process, and a fun one. It's also a fun challenge to describe, purely in text, the image of something you have in your head, and get that into someone else's head. Reminds me a bit of the fun behind the children's game Charades. You should totally try it. Or if you'd rather I initiate it, I'm happy to. Mathglot (talk) 03:48, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather that you initiated it. (They might want a couple of links to already-broken versions.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:37, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]