User talk:WhatamIdoing

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

Idea for an explanatory essay on NPOV: User:Kowal2701/Due and undue (perhaps the target of WP:DUE and WP:UNDUE if/when in project space). Something we discussed a while back that’s been bugging me, is that people cite WP:DUE which points to WEIGHT, when really they mean WP:BALASP. Was thinking this’d clear up any confusion and make life easier for newbies Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 02:29, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Is the intended content something like "When editors say DUE, they don't always mean exactly that?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:20, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Sort of, but that premise wouldn't make sense if DUE pointed to it. I'm unsure what to actually put in the sections that doesn't just duplicate the policy (other than giving lots of examples). It could just serve as a disambiguation page for DUE and UNDUE (something like this) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:27, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

The general direction that we're heading in at NPOV is to split "viewpoint" from "basic information" into separate concepts (DUE vs BALASP, basically). Getting there will take a couple of years, but we've made a start. The weak point in NPOV that we've been addressing during the last year or so is the bit I call "write an encyclopedia article". By this, I mean that there are certain basic facts about the subject that are conventionally presented in an encyclopedia article, and these should have a place even if the reliable sources spend relatively little time talking about them. The second (and fairly new) paragraph at WP:BALASP is an effort to address this gap in our advice. I think that as we build that section to be useful, and give editors enough time (years, not weeks) to discover it, then the BALASP shortcut might become better known. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:23, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense, BALASP looks much better. It seems closely related to MOS. I would've thought a complete split would be best eventually, and then mention the overlap (like with WP:VERIFYOR). In the meantime I can add a {{Redirect}} hatnote to DUE Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 20:59, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

might be interested in WP:PAGSFIRST, think I've seen you say something similar Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 10:00, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, your new page summarizes a very human tendency. Thanks for sharing the link. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:43, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

"generally un/reliable" --> "usually un/reliable"? "usually" conveys usage and gets people reflexively thinking about context. One issue, and it's a very big one: the shortcuts would be ugly Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:42, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

What I like about "usually" is that it disrupts the "WP:GREL" thinking. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:46, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. Maybe something we could tie in with the rework of RSP? The GREL etc. redirects could still work, but the anchors and shortcuts changed to "usually X" and UREL and UUNREL (ew)? I could propose it at VPI or WT:RSP, but it'd probably be one of those things that gets a few murmurs and then archived Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 21:01, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm less certain about agreement. People dislike changing jargon. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:21, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

yeah, that's why I thought it'd be better to tie it into another transformative change. But I may just suggest it at WT:RSP, that crowd seems thoughtful, and it's such a low-effort/trivial change Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 21:56, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

@Mathglot, what do you think? Would the English Wikipedia be better if we changed "GREL" to "usually reliable", etc.? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:30, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

A couple of thoughts. First, the term, as well as the abbreviation for it, were chosen before the time I became heavily involved at RSP. Regardless, I would be loathe to change a phrase that may have come out of consensus. We may need some archive archaeology (archiveology?) to determine if that was even the case, or whether some template writer had to call it something, ended up calling it that without much thought and it stuck (or at least, no one objected, or there were bigger fish to fry, etc.).

Even though it would be easy to change it now, it is really no easier, as the 'gr' is emitted by template in the table rows in the RSP table, and the longer form—whatever it is—will be emitted by template under the new system, so changing it later when we have 500+ landing source pages will be a matter of changing a couple of words in a single template (i.e., trivial).

Because the change from the current system to the new one is large, my inclination is to keep the adjustment for users to the very minimum, i.e., just do the changes that are forced upon us by the situation, and deal with other nice-to-have enhancements as separate issues after we are live with the new system. We could either just keep a list somewhere and remember to come back to it, but there is also a Phabricator project for doing the conversion at T414382, and one task is T414754 "RSP post-cutover cleanup", and this could be added under it T414382 as a sub-task if desired. But this subdiscussion would be better held there, to encourage other opinions. Mathglot (talk) 02:47, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that nothing about RSP's early days was discussed thoroughly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:27, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Lmk if this is dumb/too ambitious. Similar to the direction RSP is taking, Wikipedia:Reliable sources should be changed to Wikipedia:Source reliability and rewritten so that WP:CONTEXTMATTERS isn’t just an addendum but the basis. Like "reliable source" should always be written as "source reliable for the claim", and there should be more guidance on the different contexts. The good thing about the status quo is that it clearly relegates some sources as unreliable for literally everything bar their own content, but this could still be covered in the lead re "reputation for fact-checking", USERGEN etc. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 15:43, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

I think it's a good concept, but it's a big job. What's the smallest step you could take now towards that goal? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:57, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Talking to you :) Can do a rough mock-up at some point and fly it past people at WP:WPPAG for them to possibly take over Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 16:43, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Then congratulations: you're already on the path towards improving that guideline!

I suggest confining the rough mock-up to a single part of the guideline for now. Wholesale replacement of any guideline is extremely unusual, so I think that you want to give a solid example but still limit how much effort you're putting into it at this stage. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:54, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

User:Kowal/Mockup re Source reliability is roughly what I have in mind Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 12:36, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:SOURCEDEF would have to be changed in coordination with WP:SOURCE.

It looks like you're planning to rearrange things. This is usually possible, and I suggest doing it first, to make future diffs easier to understand. WP:RS is kind of disorganized right now, so a proposal to rearrange without changing the text might be welcome. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:48, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, good idea. It sort of depends on people being bold afterwards since carbon copies of the current sections may not make much sense in the/a new structure. I could start a discussion at WT:RS and notify WP:WPPAG, and probably WP:VPP if that goes down well Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:42, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

And WT:V, because some changes would have to be coordinated with that policy. But think about it as a series of baby steps: anything helpful that moves a page in the right direction is good, even if it's small. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:20, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Quick facts

story · music · places

Close

Happy Easter! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:04, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Today's FA is Bridge, - a broad topic by many. My father loved bridges, and I wrote a few articles with that in mind (Empress Elisabeth Bridge, adding to Chain bridge and Müngsten Bridge, the latter for childhood memory), and also thinking of bridges between people. - I brought two bios to the same page, Christian Schwarz-Schilling and Bill Ramsey whose regular Swingtime I used to hear in the car driving to choir rehearsals ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:57, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Today's story is about one of three bios I brought to today's main page: look and listen, an extraordinary woman in many respects. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:21, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

I thought "Bridge" would be about Frank Bridge, an unjustly neglected composer. Okay, some of his stuff is run-of-the-mill British pastoral. But with (say) The Sea there is inspiration! Bon courage (talk) 20:18, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

The accounts you described are a common WP:LTA which pops up daily. If you see them in the future, it would be helpful to post them at WP:AIV with the reason "LTA". This one is called WP:LTA/SB1, specifically. tony 05:21, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, @TonySt. Is that URL on the spam black list yet? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't know, but it doesn't really matter regardless. If it's blocked they'll just spam a different URL (or something besides a URL). tony 16:20, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

I see. I haven't checked to see what the target link is, so I assumed it was something specific they wanted to promote. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Rather than offering a view based just on your own understanding and reasoning? Where will it all end? Bon courage (talk) 01:46, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Hopefully with a consensus. And maybe, in my fantasies, reliable sources that can distinguish between pseudoscience and other forms of pseudoscholarship, and maybe – just maybe – between pseudoscholarship and nonsense. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:57, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Could you have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holocaust memory in pro-Palestinian activism? I have checked the sources used in the article and they are valid except... the sources make it clear that this is about the POV of a small minority; in Wikipedia-speak, WP:FRINGE. The article has been cut back since the nomination to remove the SYNTH but I would value your opinion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:36, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've got the tabs open, but this doesn't look like a simple question, so don't expect a quick answer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:34, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		Thank you for your input regarding my (regrettable) vandalism of Suicide Methods - coolgurl5555 ✈︎ (she/her) ✈︎ 20:01, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

You're welcome. I hope that you're feeling a little better today. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:32, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Hope you get well soon coolgurl. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:20, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I somewhat am but still not doing great - coolgurl5555 ✈︎ (she/her) ✈︎ 01:15, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. wound theology◈ 21:50, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

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

- coolgurl5555 ✈︎ (she/her) ✈︎ 17:17, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Here, I think you’ve noted that my hypothetical example is on the boundary where different people can come to opposite conclusions (passes or fails the GNG). In the real example, people rejected the sources emphatically. Talking about the real example, which was untouched by me, would be more productive. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:38, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi, WhatamIdoing. Just a timesaver tip about something I'm pretty sure you already know but probably slipped your mind. In this edit, you wrote:

Some people might read the current ("disorders") name and incorrectly guess that it's about [[Psychosexual disorder|psychosexual disorders]].

But you can save the piped link and just write [[psychosexual disorder]]s instead ⟶ psychosexual disorders. But you knew that, right? Mathglot (talk) 22:19, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

That only works if you're typing in the wikitext, and I posted that in the visual editor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:44, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Aha. Well, surprised/not surprised that VE doesn't allow that. Surprised, because I assume there must be some mini popup dialog where you type in the target and the anchor text and you'd think it would just allow arbitrary suffixes and just link them, too, like wikitext does. Not surprised, because VE. (Maybe I should file a ticket; seems like a bug somewhere.) Appreciate the response; I learned something new about VE. Mathglot (talk) 01:05, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Normally, you type the visible label in the ordinary doc, and add the link separately.

It's already been reported; think about how often this happens in a heavily declined language. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:18, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

Hmm. Are you really Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia, or just to focus on Tesla's nationality? Did you Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass, or are you still trying to beat a dead horse in the hope that you can get an outcome you would find more palatable? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:20, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Were are you getting that I'm "focused" on Tesla's nationality? Neither I , nor anyone else has ever been focused on Tesla's nationality or ethnicity. Go and search through archives if you don't believe me. Also, which stick am I not dropping? I haven't edited the article once , not have started the discussion that I requested formal closure for. I posted my opinion there and that's all. I mean, it's ridiculous that Joy has convinced other admins to ban me as sock of some disruptive user who was pro-Croatian , while I advocated to remove Croatia in that previous discussion. And I even didn't revert Joy when he deleted my comments, nor go to edit warring. I left for others to discuss and just requested formal closure. You know the best that you didn't even know about my deleted comments when you assessed the consensus. I did everything right and ever since then Joy has been working to get his way. Several times he tried to engage others to agree with him. He spoke about that consensus in negative tone to diminish it. He banned several users who disagreed with him. Do you want diffs? Even now, here , I followed your advice to stay away from that discussion. But , who's not dropping the stick here, I or Joy? My whole claim is that he's not dropping the stick. ~2026-29526-24 (talk) 21:11, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

User Beland says that Template Infobox Person was updated last year to stop prohibiting this type of clarification . And of course , who updated it . Also, User Binksternet is Joy's acquaintance from previous discussions and after initially posting his opinion in the discussion that you closed where he disagreed with Joy, Joy had made him change that opinion, so now he supports Joy's stand. I could find the diffs. ~2026-29519-68 (talk) 22:20, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Hey,

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

for example

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Statistics&diff=prev&oldid=1320603209
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Statistics&diff=prev&oldid=1313504577
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Statistics&diff=prev&oldid=1286741086

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

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

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

Hello, @WikiPate. MassViews was a hassle, because it timed out on the long list, so I ended up running it in batches and then assembling it in a simple spreadsheet. If memory serves, that sample set included redirects but not (then-)deleted articles.

If you want to work on this, I suggest starting over. That means:

• Get a new sample. 10K articles is a good number to be working with. Get articles that have existed for a whole year.
• Actually, get two: one for active articles and one for mainspace redirects. Then you can compare, and then Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion can have a fair understanding of what an average number of page views is for a redirect.
• Split up the lists and make a couple of big PagePiles https://pagepile.toolforge.org/
• Run MassViews on each PagePile, and assemble the results in a spreadsheet. Really basic statistics (e.g., median and other round-number percentiles) seem to be easy for editors to understand.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:56, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

thanks for your reply. Massviews has always run smoothly on my side. In my sample were many redirects and deleted articles. Then I changed the quarry and now there are no redirects, deleted articles and disambiguation pages included anymore. As I wanted it. With this quarry (105426):

SELECT p.page_title

FROM page p

INNER JOIN revision r ON p.page_latest = r.rev_id

LEFT JOIN page_props pp ON p.page_id = pp.pp_page AND pp.pp_propname = 'disambiguation'

WHERE p.page_namespace = 0

AND p.page_is_redirect = 0

AND p.page_random >= 0.83921

AND pp.pp_page IS NULL

ORDER BY p.page_random ASC

LIMIT 10000; WikiPate (talk) 19:34, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Great. I'm looking forward to seeing the results. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:26, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

It says that 70% of all articles have at least 1 page view per day on average. wow.

To validate I checked the page views of 50 random articles with WP:Random. And both numbers come quite close.

I put the numbers here for now: User:WikiPate/Statistics

In SQL in addition to excluded article redirects, deleted articles and disambiguation pages I also excluded wikispecies redirects and redirects for discussion. I replaced AND p.page_random >= 0.83921 with AND p.page_random >= RAND(). The current quarry is 105482.
WikiPate (talk) 20:37, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I think that what's in Wikipedia:Statistics#English Wikipedia includes redirects (which we should expect to be lower). I'd love to have your new set of numbers replace the old ones. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:25, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

*done*

Could you write, how you found out this?: "About half of articles contain four or fewer references." WikiPate (talk) 23:53, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

The sample set is User:BilledMammal/Average articles, and from there it's very basic spreadsheet work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:18, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

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

-- In cooperation with the U4C, Keegan (WMF) (talk)

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

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

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

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

Can you give me a list of articles tagged by WP:MED that have 5+ ATODAY links? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:55, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

You have the list with “naked” links right? So just scan the articles in “med” and csm1 maintenance? Dw31415 (talk) 20:23, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, the "naked" links are listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Deprecated archival service#Outside of citation templates and there aren't very many of them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:30, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Doing... for my notes, here is the query: https://quarry.wmcloud.org/query/105640 Dw31415 (talk) 13:52, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

 Done User:WhatamIdoing/Medicine_Archival_Link_Counts Dw31415 (talk) 14:01, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing, is that what you were asking for? Dw31415 (talk) 02:05, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that looks good. (Ouch, 312 WP:ATODAY links in that one page!) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:55, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

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

WP:VPT is the correct place for that kind of question, and the answer is that there's no way to find past uses of images (or templates, for that matter) on wiki.

It might be possible with some of the historical dumps, if it was used for a significant length of time (e.g., long enough to get caught in the snapshots) or if you downloaded the huge every-single-revision-ever versions and searched. If you only want to do this for one image (or a few), then you might see whether you can find it in archive.org and see whether the global usage section (example) mentions it being used for the file you're interested in at any of the dates they captured. If it's listed there, you would know; if it wasn't, that would only prove that it didn't happen to be present on the days the archive snapshots were taken. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:00, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

That's very surprising that there isn't a tool to do this or that it isn't tracked anywhere, but thanks for the information. The relevant image, for transparency, is c:File:Michael Jackson with accuser James Safechuck (46844862102).jpg. At c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Michael Jackson with accuser James Safechuck (46844862102).jpg, Rhododentrites stated "Regardless, it is in use in multiple places". Archives on web.archive.org of the commons file note only usage at c:User:Holly Cheng/Recent uploads/Hawaii/2022 March 24, one page on the German Wikipedia and two on the Italian Wikipedia. I am curious if this was ever used on the English Wikipedia. Katzrockso (talk) 23:13, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

(It's one of those fundamental architectural consequences.)

You could ask that editor if he happens to remember whether it was ever used here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:21, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I asked over at Commons. Katzrockso (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		ur userpage has all the humor, made both me & alexa laugh. AltoHampton t • c • g • s 01:00, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

Thanks :) InfernoHues (talk) 04:13, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you! OGDiggyDaddy (talk) 01:11, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

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

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