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

RfC - Airport destination lists

Hi, for your information, as you were involved in the previous discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Airport destination lists or the RfC on consensus of WP:DESTNOT at WT:NOT, I wanted to let you know that the discussed broader RfC has been opened at WP:VPP#RfC - The inclusion of destination lists in Airport articles. If you wish to contribute, please feel free. Many thanks! Danners430 _{tweaks made} 20:46, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

• WhatamIdoing has just closed this discussion after copying it to a separate page. This was confusing for me as I am subscribed to this discussion. It appeared that the discussion had been closed but all its content was gone and there was no clear explanation of what was happening. A fuller explanation was provided in another RfC, explaining that this was being done for size reasons. Such explanations should please be repeated in each case as editors may be subscribed to some but not others.

Note that I am now using subscription notifications as a way of following such long discussions. The notifications show the updates being made and I then decide whether or not to drill down on the new detail. The issue of subscriptions should be considered and allowed for when spinning off or forking. It appears that I am now subscribed to the split discussion page but I'm not sure how that happens technically.

Andrew🐉(talk) 08:08, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

I have to say, I’m very much against forking as it will reduce traffic to the RfC as it’s no longer on the VPP main page. Given it was also done without any kind of discussion, @WhatamIdoing I request this is reverted. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 08:17, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

The same thing was done to the LLM RfC. In that case, WhatamIdoing said, This page was almost a million bytes long, so these long discussions need to be split off. The actual numbers were:

Village Pump (Policy) = 974K

LLM/AI generated proposals? = 180K (archived)

RfC: Replace text of Wikipedia:Writing articles with large language models = 150K (split)

RfC - The inclusion of destination lists in Airport articles = 181K (split)

I suppose this happens often so there may be a guideline. But see Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines#RFC:_Recommended_maximum_talk_page_size which has removed the suggested figure of 75K as a threshold.

Andrew🐉(talk) 08:38, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson, I didn't close the discussion; it's open at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Destination lists in airport articles. (I did box up the former location.) If you are [subscribe]d to the discussion, you are now subscribed to both locations.

Additionally, @Danners430, I reset the RFC id to keep Legobot happy, so you just won a fresh round of Wikipedia:Feedback request service notifications (to the new location), plus people on mobile devices will actually be able to participate, which isn't the case for many editors when a page is approaching a million bytes (or even half a million).

See also Wikipedia talk:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 2#Looking for some unofficial clerks WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:54, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, despite already having !voted in the RfC, I got another notification on my talk page to opine on the RfC. Katzrockso (talk) 19:03, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you did close the discussion that I was subscribed to. Here's the notification I got which said so. To avoid such confusion, please use a more appropriate template such as {{Moved discussion to}}. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:31, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

I find that it's more effective to box up the 'wrong location' so that people will not fork the discussion. (I normally leave the section heading and the first comment alone, to make it easier for people to find the discussion they were looking for, especially for someone searching the archives in the future.)

The discussion is still open, no matter what automated message you received. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:50, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

I hope I haven't messed up anything by moving the page to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Airport destination lists 2, inspired by checking Wikipedia:Village pump archive. If I have, feel free to revert me. Graham87 (talk) 07:43, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Looks like I did, but I figured it out. I should've read the documentation at {{RFC}} beforehand. It seems like that's provoked yet another round of feedback requests ... Graham87 (talk) 11:28, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

That may irritate some multiply-notified people, but if it brings in some new participants, then maybe we'll have a better chance of reaching a consensus in that discussion. I would particularly like the result there to be firm, because we've got a follow-on RFC that depends on having an answer to that question. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Flightradar24 at WP:RSN

Since the previous discussion, because of my poor judgement at grouping together unrelated sources, was a mess and was archived with no outcome, I've started a fresh, targeted, discussion about FR24. Pinging you because you were in the old discussion :-) Danners430 _{tweaks made} 14:41, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Nikola Tesla Modern Day Country Location

Hello WhatamIdoing, I noticed your comment on the Nikola Tesla Talk Page here, but your edit here removing the phrase you defended. I’m confused as to whether this was by mistake or a consensus was reached? It seems the IP addresses pushing to remove the phrases are one in the same person. So not exactly consensus. And you seemed suspicious of them as well stating that they were looking to remove “all mentions of Croatia in the article” and that they had “given up” so I assume you are not in favor of their aim of removal from theinfobox? Cheers OyMosby (talk) 03:08, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

@OyMosby, see Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity/Archive 18#Infobox (now in...). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:22, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Huh… Weird that this was on a different talk page from the main article’s talk page. Either way, so you no longer agree with your defense of the use of “Modern Day X” in the infobox on October 26? Or was that for general use and not the infobox? It seems the subsequent discussions after that previous discussion in early October didn’t end with a final decision. Personally I don’t see the issue as articles dealing with territories from a century ago tend to describe the modern day present location for reader context. Also this doesn’t appears to be an RfC or any vote. But was closed as one?OyMosby (talk) 05:34, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

I believe two things:

1. There is nothing wrong with "modern-day X" constructions.
2. There was a rough consensus to remove "now in Croatia" from the infobox (only).

There is no conflict between these two views. It is possible to support including "present-day Croatia" in (for example) the first sentence of Nikola Tesla#Childhood and also oppose having that same fact repeated in the infobox. Support for including it somewhere in the article does not mean support for including it in all possible locations on the page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:46, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

My original question was if your entry was about the infobox specifically or just general. So it was for general use not infobox specific. Answered. Got it. Cheers! OyMosby (talk) 05:52, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

(It wasn't an RFC. It was, however, listed at Wikipedia:Closure requests. If you look at Wikipedia:Closure requests, you will see that non-RFCs are also eligible for closing summaries by uninvolved editors upon request.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:50, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Ah, well still learning all the ins and outs of Wikipedia. I don’t follow the closure request page but now will. I was watching the discussion under the “Should Croatia be removed entirely” thread that preceded the Infobox thread that is on a different talk page for some reason. I would have participated if I knew it was going on and catalogued for consensus. Will keep in mind for the future to be active. Thanks! OyMosby (talk) 05:55, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

My impression is that there are so many requests to add/remove Croatia from that article that they've created a separate talk page for it. It would be ideal if the page were watched by editors who don't actually care what the result is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:12, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Was the latter in reference to me? I meant watching the closure request page as I didn’t know consensus was being sought at the time is all. I agree that it would be preferable that neutral editors such as yourself monitored it but obviously that’s a massive time sink and not nearly enough editors are around to do such a thing. Also the initial infobox discussion likely would have never occurred if only editors with no opinion on the topic were watching. I personally didn’t bother putting my 2 cents into the later thread upon seeing it as it felt like a waste of time given the dramatic arguments the devolve on the main talk page, as typical on Ex Yugoslavia related articles. I think even admins lack the energy and feel reluctant to intervene. Anyways thanks for clarifying all that had transpired. I should have first spoken to you before reverting your edit. But with all the vandalism and edit warring on the page, I assumed the worst wrongly. Cheers. OyMosby (talk) 23:46, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Primary sources

Is there a noticeboard or other talk page that where editors can ask about whether a particular source is a primary or secondary source for a particular statement? This is in relation to the conversation at Talk:Monsanto (this part in particular [1], for transparency), which has been unnecessarily long. Rather than unproductively go back and forth on a specific issue I'd rather bring a specific question to a noticeboard/talk page and see what other editors think. Katzrockso (talk) 23:25, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

No, there's no separate noticeboard. I'll go look at the discussion and see if I can help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:33, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I could very well be wrong (which I should have more openly acknowledged in many of my comments there), which is why I wanted to bring it to the attention of uninvolved editors. Katzrockso (talk) 02:31, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

On a cynical day, I might say that after more than a decade of people getting PSTS classifications wrong, I assume that everyone's wrong until proven otherwise. You were correct this time.

One thing you might consider is whether that classification actually matters in the instant case. It sounds to me like the question is whether to name/shame the surviving author in that article, and that's a decision that needs to be made with editorial judgment. You're unlikely to find a source that says "Wikipedia ought to do this". WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:58, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that is the primary question at stake, but secondarily there are motivations for including this information in the article. I think there is the idea that the retraction can be explained away by the fact the the surviving author didn't satisfactorily reply to the concerns and that if he had replied, the paper would still be Legitimate Science™ that was unfairly maligned (or something along those lines). My worry is thus two-fold: 1) there is little reason to include the name of the surviving author in the text and 2) the inclusion of this information only has the effect of implying that the retraction is of some lesser meaning/less reflective of the fundamental issues with regards to authorial independence. In reviewing many past discussions on multiple talk pages (as I did not just jump into the discussion having no idea the history of the page), I have seen editors claim that this paper was definitely 'not ghostwritten' or that claiming as such is a FRINGE idea.

As for the classification, I think it's important here because we are trying to establish how we are discussing (in the article's text) the proximate/ultimate causes of the paper being retracted. Ultimate cause is obviously the ghostwriting/appearance thereof [even the most skeptical editor would have to agree that the emails provide the appearance of the paper have been ghostwritten]. Proximately, Kaurov and Oreskes writing a letter-to-the-editor was one of the causes of the retraction. The sources are clear in attributing the retraction to the fact that it was ghostwritten (this claim is made unattributed and as a matter of fact by all the newspaper articles, as well as the academic sources). My argument is that the proposed text (following a lack of response by Gary M. Williams, the last surviving author of the paper) was engaging in WP:SYNTHESIS of the primary source. Katzrockso (talk) 04:29, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

It sounds like getting no response being interpreted on the one side as an implicit admission of guilt, and by the other as not blaming the author for being retired/on vacation/sick/busy/whatever?

When I read through the evidence of guilt, the thing that mostly occurs to me is that CEOs don't always have the fullest understanding of what actually happens. Communication can be challenging over a (social) distance. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:36, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's admission of guilt, he's really old at this point and if I were him I wouldn't bother responding either. Katzrockso (talk) 21:34, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Project idea

Hey, a few days/weeks ago we've discussed a project I've been working on, and you told me it was too similar to Wikiproject retention. However, I'm thinking of making this wikiproject be about articles, whereas WP:retention is about users. Do you think that would make the distinction good enough to become a wikiproject? Thanks! Wikieditor662 (talk) 17:28, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

@Wikieditor662,

Wikipedia:A WikiProject is a group of people. What matters most for starting a WikiProject is assembling a group of people. If you can assemble a group whose interest is helping Wikipedia by clicking Special:Random every day, or by producing photos of unicorns, or by leaving barnstars for promising newcomers, then that's fine.

What's not fine is saying "Look! Here I am, all by myself with no group of editors, and I am a WikiProject!" It does not matter what your subject area is. What matters is the people you are working with.

The reason I suggested that you look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention is because it may be easier to join/expand/take over an existing group than to assemble a new group.

To explain how I evaluate WikiProject proposals, let me tell you two stories. First, the success:

• Editor: Hey, Alice and Bob and Chris and David and Frank and Geo and I want a WikiProject.
• Me: Seven editors. Three of you have thousands of edits, and five of you have accounts older than a year. This sounds great. Let us know if you run into problems with the templates or categories.
• Editor: Don't you need to know what the subject area is?
• Me: That's not technically necessary, since one of our little-known rules is that separate groups are allowed to have overlapping and even identical scopes. That said, if you want to share that, I might be able to make some time-saving suggestions.

Now the failure:

• Editor: I want to start a WikiProject.
• Me: You and which other six to ten editors?
• Editor: My WikiProject is going to be about ChatGPT.
• Me: Wikipedia:A WikiProject is a group of people. Who else is in your group?
• Editor: What if my WikiProject is about LLMs more broadly?
• Me: WikiProjects are people. WikiProjects are not subject areas. Where are your other editors?
• Editor: I could change the subject area to be AI in general.
• Me: No WikiProject until you can give me the names of at least six editors. Editors, not articles.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:56, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Very funny! But is it actually like that, that if you have at least 7 members that you don't even need to explain what your project is about, and that it can overlap with other projects? Wikieditor662 (talk) 19:59, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Other editors will probably want to know what your subject area, and if it's a very close match to another group, you'll get people asking you to merge. Wikipedia:WikiProject First aid and Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Emergency medicine and EMS task force have very similar scopes. They both exist (for now) because the last editor remaining at WikiProject First aid didn't want to be part of WikiProject Medicine. That's okay.

Non-identical overlapping scopes are normal. Proper subsets are very common (e.g., everything that Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red does is also tagged by Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography; everything that Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history does is also tagged by Wikipedia:WikiProject History). The "scope" is what the group chooses to do. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a volunteer service, so you can't force them to do what they don't want to do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:51, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

And if they ask me to merge, and I say no, will we still be granted the project? Not that I hope it comes to this, but I'm just curious. Wikieditor662 (talk) 23:41, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

We have rules against forcing groups to merge (mostly because it doesn't work – it's like asking kids who always sit at different tables in the lunch room to all sit somewhere else). We can't, however, prevent people from endlessly suggesting to one or both groups that the two groups combine.

I think that if you said "We want to do exactly what this other group does, only we want to do it without them and using our own name", then people would want to know more. (Are the two groups rivals? Should we expect drama in articles, with the groups working at cross purposes?) But in principle any group that has a sensible reason for wanting to set up pages/templates/categories is welcome to do so – as long as they're a group. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:49, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2026!

Hello WhatamIdoing, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2026. Happy editing, Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:46, 18 December 2025 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:46, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2026!

Hello WhatamIdoing, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2026. Happy editing, sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:03, 26 December 2025 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:03, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you both for the Christmas wishes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:38, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Bad RfC discussion

Hi @WhatamIdoing. I've left a comment on your recent discussion. I haven't read the entire discussion as it is very long, I would have appreciated a ping as you did list my recent RfC as being labelled as 'bad'. I've been ill however and am still recovering, so I likely wouldn't have had the energy to participate anyway. I think I understand the point of the discussion, that being whether to mandate WP:RFCBEFORE or not. I don't like the use of the word 'bad' as it comes across as assuming bad faith on the part of the editor who started the discussion. I will ping @FOARP here as well. I get that it may only intend to say the RfC wasn't well prepared, but to label RfCs with such a word I feel goes against WP:AGF. This was not enjoyable for me, I dislike confrontation and I really feel this could have been addressed in a better way than how it was. @FOARP is an administrator, so I am not going to challenge them, however I feel that a change in how things are phrased would be really beneficial to the RfC process. 11WB (talk) 16:17, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

You have completely misunderstood that other conversation. I have explained your mistake on the other page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:51, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

I say this respectfully but the general topic is not something I have any interest in whatsoever. I simply take issue with editors commenting "Bad RfC" as a !vote on RfCs they consider as such. This goes against what WP:RFCRESPOND advises:

'If you feel an RfC is improperly worded, ask the originator to improve the wording, or add an alternative unbiased statement immediately below the RfC question (after the rfc tag). You can also ask for help or a second opinion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment. Do not end an RfC just because you think the wording is biased. An rfc tag generally remains on the page until removed by Legobot or the originator. An RfC can be ended only when the criteria at Ending RfCs are met.'

@FOARP did not do this.

I'll reiterate this here, but as they are an administrator, it would be extremely inappropriate for me to have challenged @FOARP on this. I simply made the decision to move the comment to the discussion section instead. 11WB (talk) 18:33, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Your talk page isn't the place to address this specific issue, so I'm going to refrain from continuing this here. I only posted here to notify you of my comment on your discussion. If @FOARP feels they should respond, I invite them to do so at my talk page in a non-heated manner. I want to make clear here I don't have a personal issue with anyone specifically, I simply feel the words we use are impactful and could be phrased differently. 11WB (talk) 18:44, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

It is appropriate for editors to challenge administrators when we think they screwed up. We call that "accountability", which means we expect them to "give an account" (an explanation) for their actions. Often, giving an account will explain why they weren't actually screwing up, or at least convince us that they might not have been screwing up. This may not feel culturally comfortable for some editors, but it is accepted and even encouraged at the English Wikipedia. FOARP is not the kind of person who will feel shamed or threatened by someone saying that they want more information about why he acted the way he did. I'm sure that he could give a perfectly good answer, and I'm sure that he didn't think you were a bad-faith editor.

I agree with you that "Bad RFC" votes are becoming problematic. I agree that RFCRESPOND discourages such responses (though I think it's not explicit enough for some editors to make the connection, even assuming that they read RFCRESPOND before responding, which is highly unlikely). On the other hand, we actually do get some RFCs that are extremely confused and really are "bad RFCs", just like you might say that you had a "bad meal" if you accidentally burned the food, or that you had to clean up a "bad mess" if you accidentally spilled paint on the floor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:50, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

This makes sense, and it appears we agree then. I apologise for charging in with a comment that wasn't directly relevant to the topic. I admit, and I have said this elsewhere, the RfC I started did not have thorough planning. I don't think @FOARP messed up, I only take issue with how they addressed their concerns with the RfC. I've only been editing for less than a year, so to challenge an administrator at this time would be ill-advised, especially if I were to be incorrect. RFCRESPOND is an information page, so I don't know if that makes it a guideline or just information. The way you have described it however seems to suggest it isn't an enforceable rule. 11WB (talk) 18:57, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

The whole Wikipedia:Requests for comment attempts to document reality. Parts of it are enforced by bot. Other parts are enforced by suggestions and hints. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:42, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

God Jul!

Hello WhatamIdoing: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:21, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:21, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:31, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Season's greetings!

About a year ago, a newbie GoldRomean recieved a very kind invitation from you to join WikiProject Medicine. It probably took you all of a minute to send, but it was a big factor in convincing me to stay on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, I never did get much involved with WP:MED—maybe sometime in the future!—but anyhow, thanks for all you do, continue to remember the newbies, and wishing a happy holiday season and a prosperous new year to you and yours!

GoldRomean (talk) 18:31, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:38, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Request to edit COI

Hi! Happy holidays - I noticed that you were active on the COI page and I was wondering if you would be interested in taking a look at my COI page - It's relatively simple and hopefully will be very quick to do. I'm rather new to wikipedia, so please let me know if this is not allowed! Thank you!!

Talk:Gunjan Bagla Tulip-hydrangea (talk) 17:00, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

I can't imagine why you think I'm "active on the COI page".

I have looked at your request, and I wouldn't accept it. I'd want to shorten it to a single sentence. I've fixed a couple of little formatting details and will leave it for someone else. Maybe they'll like it better. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:06, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

My apologies - I saw your name on a COI thread and mistakenly assumed you handled them regularly. Thanks for the feedback! I've shortened the request and adjusted the tone to be more neutral. I'll wait for another editor to review it. Tulip-hydrangea (talk) 23:28, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Good luck. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:31, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Happy New Year, WhatamIdoing!

Happy New Year!

WhatamIdoing,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 13:42, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 13:42, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:52, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Articles must be accurate

In complete agreement with "articles must be accurate" but do we have that written down in a guideline or policy somewhere? (Wikipedia:Accuracy and Wikipedia:Verifiable but not false are essays.) I need to bookmark it because I keep getting into arguments about this when sources are wrong. (eg. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian rules football#Verifiability vs Truth) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:39, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7, the clearest statement might be in the lead of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:03, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

For what it's worth

Your general point about accessibility for disabled individuals in the ANI thread is one of the foremost factors that has caused concern and frustration for me this last year as I have watched the community stumble from one clumsy over-correction to another in a ham-fisted attempt to create a buttress against AI (but with an ungainly and untenable longterm strategy with far too many knock-on effects) over this last year. I don't know about an article, but there could surely be more community discussion about the ablest (and I don't use that term often, but if ever there was an occasion for it...) implications of our so-far very monolithic and un-nuanced response to the unprecedented challenges and dangers of AI. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 08:10, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm particularly worried about it in conversations, because I think it's reasonable to say that AI-generated content (at this point in time) is basically inferior and should be politely but firmly discouraged in the mainspace. It's less tenable to say that you don't want knowledgeable people to tell us where articles have problems if they can't easily write the explanation in English, or – in a community where written language skill is taken as evidence of intelligence – that they need to look "stupid" or "sloppy", and therefore to have their ideas ignored, rejected, or ridiculed. For example, if someone with severe dyslexia wants to suggest making Dyslexia more accessible to people who have dyslexia, then our response should sound a lot closer to "You're right. That article kind of sucks. We should use a simpler writing style in this article" than to "How dare you use AI!"

I've started wondering today whether a Five whys approach might uncover some information that we're missing. We've got some anti-AI purists (AI is immoral as a matter of their personal values, and there's no reasoning with that), but I suspect that we have other editors who would prefer to take a more nuanced or empathetic approach, except that something is so bad right now that they are ready to burn everything to the ground to solve the bad problem. Only – which problem is driving that reaction? If we knew what it is, we might be able to find alternatives. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:57, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Your "How dare you use AI!" comment reminds that Wikipedia's default method of argumentation and derailment tactic is tone policing. Apparently in ignorance that the rest of the civilised world think it a bad thing that bad people do for nefarious purposes. I believe there's a modestly successful internet encyclopaedia with an article on the topic. So there's no excuse. -- Colin°^Talk 11:26, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

People do what's easy. Tone policing is often easier than evaluating substantive claims. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:00, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

former municipalities and current towns

Hi, I've opened a discussion at the village pump/proposal on the matter on which we had discussed at the idea lab. --Friniate ✉ 14:24, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:00, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

January music

story · music · places

happy new year! - inviting you to check out "my" story (fun listen today, full of surprises), music (and memory), and places (pictured by me: the latest uploads) any day! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:25, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you

I've been meaning to stop by to say how much I appreciate how supportive, informative, and patient you've been with me this last year. Thank you. With lots of good wishes for the new year, FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:33, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. I'm always happy when I see your name in my watchlist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:43, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

How nice of you to say, I'm glad that's the case. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:41, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

AI on the Wiki

Surely, anyone who is approved to use AWB on the wiki, should be approved to use AI on the Wiki. Alternatively, there could be a alternate list of users who are premitted to use AI on the Wiki.

Anyway, I think that some uses should have official approval to use AI on the Wiki, and this shouid be verifiable on a maintained list, like the list for AWB users. This might change in time, but I think it is right for now.

I guess the trouble is that unskilled use of AI has given AI a bad reputation on the Wiki. Few users are aware that some uses can use AI expertly. Snowman (talk) 13:47, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

@Snowmanradio, it feels like it's been a while since I saw your name. I hope you're doing well.

@S Marshall and @Chaotic Enby have been developing a proposal around article translation in which the idea of a user right authorizing machine translation has come up. (Many machine translation tools use some form of LLM underneath the hood.) I remember another, more general proposal for a generic "trusted AI user" user right, but I can't find it right now.

Since you compare it to AWB, I suspect you're thinking about gnoming actions or changes that could be done via regex or bot (e.g., converting a list to a table), only it might be faster to do it with via an LLM, especially for those of us who can't really code. Those changes rarely irritate people, probably because they can't tell the difference between an LLM that rejiggers wikitext and an editor typing them by hand.

I believe the main concern about LLM use is about using LLMs to post new/different words, especially whole articles. You might be interested in Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Mass creation and User talk:Sarefo/Archive 1#AI content? and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive375#Revoking autopatrolled right from Sarefo for undisclosed LLM-generated articles as a case study for what can (and did) go wrong even within a fairly simple subject area. We finally got a simple, two-sentence guideline, Wikipedia:Writing articles with large language models, adopted around article creation (basically: don't do it). As soon as it was adopted, multiple editors started proposals to replace those two sentences with very long sets of rules, explanations of why it's Very Bad™, and so forth. We don't have any similar rules (yet) about article expansion or copyediting.

We also have adopted rules against (over)using AI on talk pages (WP:AITALK) and against using it for most images (WP:AIIMAGE), though like the AWB-type edits, if people don't think you're using AI, they won't complain about AI (and even if you're not, they might – a particular problem for many English language learners and autistic people, as their normal/human writing style has more in common with LLM output than (e.g.) mine, leading to false accusations [2][3][4]). But that hasn't stopped editors from proposing lengthy expansions of these two rules. you can read one such proposal at User:Athanelar/Don't use LLMs to talk for you. It's 2400 words long right now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:17, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Nice to meet you here agian. I have stayed away from the Wiki while I have have been busy, but I occassionaly inadvertantly get interested again. Most of AWB is code based; nevertheless, uses can make a lot of mistakes rapidly. My analagy between LLM and AWB is about trusting users to use these tools correctly. To be honest, I think that a lot of users do not have intuition of what an AI LLM can do, when used optimally. I have startred an interesting discussion about AI on the WB:Birds talk page. Snowman (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

I think editors agree with you that users (even users whom we would trust in other circumstances) don't have a good sense of what an AI tool can do. In particular, they seem to feel like most AI users are lacking a clear sense of how AI tools are most likely to screw up, and that makes it less likely that an otherwise competent user would identify and fix such problems before posting them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:26, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hello WhatamIdoing! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Terry Yorath, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:05, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Old RfC data

Hi @WhatamIdoing, I’ll understand if you’re no longer interested in the old RfC data, but if you are, please do take a look: Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#c-Dw31415-20260114025200-Dw31415-20260109144200. Thanks! Dw31415 (talk) 12:15, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

On “that” and “which”

Hi WhatAmIDoing, based on your discussion of “that” and “which” on your page, you might find this duscussion on the MOS Talk page of interest: “Should ‘that’ be deprecated on Wikipedia?” Title was a bit tongue in cheek, of course.

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

glad you appreciated my addition to the BLP notice board. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 21:55, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm always interested in this point of grammar. Thanks for the note. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:52, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Airport destination lists sourcing RfC

Hi there,

I'm leaving this message because you contributed to the recent RfC regarding the inclusion of airport destination lists. As promised, now that that RfC has closed, I've initiated a further discussion about the sourcing standards to be applied to these lists.

If you wish to contribute to the discussion, please do so at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Airport destination lists - sourcing requirements.

Cheers! Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:47, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

RfC: Merging merge discussions with AfD

There is an RfC that you may be interested in per your prior comments on the topic at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § RfC: Merging merge discussions with AfD. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:04, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Primerica

HI there - left a reply to your suggestion at Talk:Primerica#RfC To Include Research Products. Thanks! TermLifeOG (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

2 periods

i removed 1 or your 2 periods here because i'm not sure why it was added. Logoshimpo (talk) 08:04, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:12, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

waiting for the RSP restructuring process

Hello! You wrote this.

Could I ask you to very very briefly lay out why you feel my suggested changes to RSPYT are dependent on the "RSP restructuring process" or at least when you expect this process to be done?

I am not opposed to waiting but would like to understand for myself why this would be beneficial. Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

I've been sadly neglecting the RSP restructuring recently, so @Mathglot could probably give you more precise information. All I will say is that I believe that the transition from the current table to the new subpages will happen in weeks rather than months.

The problems (←intentional plural) with the YouTube entry is what triggered the restructuring process. IMO the most significant problem is that it treats all YouTube content the same. We need space to explain the differences, from official channels of ordinary news media (e.g., BBC) vs official channels of individuals and organizations (e.g., NASA) to unofficial/personal channels (e.g., teenagers on skateboards and copies of favorite movies). Right now, editors glancing at it seem to think it says that if Joe Film says ____ on Facebook, that's okay, but if the same person says the same thing in the same way on YouTube, then it's not. This is wrong and needs to be fixed, but it will be much easier to fix when we have a whole subpage to explain about official vs unverified accounts, fake videos, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:07, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the RSPYT issue, but CapnZapp if you want to work on a rewrite of RSPYT using the new format, I think you can start in on it as long as you don't name it the same as the page the autoconversion process expects to create so there isn't a collision. That means, of course, that it won't be visible to users scanning the RSP table; would that be an issue? If you come up with a detailed page in the new format that you would like to expose before RSP restructuring, I suppose you could just link it from the table entry for a few weeks, if it's worth it. Mathglot (talk) 08:14, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

It's possible that the discussion and links in Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Archive 12#YouTube is not a source would be useful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

I now understand the work is to restructure RSP into subpages. I still am not sure I understand why discussing/improving individual entries (such as the one for YouTube) is conditional upon that work's completion. Unless I misunderstand a process of restructuring is a purely technical rejigging, and will/should/ought to not change any actual guidance, just store and/or present it differently. So if we were to amend RSPYT, why or how shouldn't we expect the current or new phrasing to simply be carried across to the new infrastructure? Best regards, CapnZapp (talk) 19:02, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

You can still improve individual entries within the confines of the standard table structure. See the edit notice that appears when you edit one of the eight RSP table subpages. Mathglot (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

@CapnZapp, the problem is that RSPYT needs to be much longer and more complex, and "within the confines of the standard table structure" is not really convenient for long, complex explanations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:19, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Expansive Definition

Hello. You wrote nobody says that femicide or geronticide is a form of genocide, but even looking at the lead of Gaza genocide, you'll see that death itself (the "cide" part) is not even an essential element of genocide in some eyes. That's seemingly a large part of why things are getting so untethered from the legal definition. Coining (talk) 20:59, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that it's possible to destroy a culture without killing any individual members. In the words of the Tom Lehrer song, it's even possible to do so "by peaceful means", like education or transportation improvements.

But the fact is that some women are killed because they are women, and some elderly people are killed because they are elderly, and AFAICT this is not considered genocide by anyone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Which dispute?

Hey WAID, I've long found the example you give on your userpage interesting and informative: "An article about an international trade dispute, for example, should explain the situation from the viewpoint of both countries – not just one or the other, and not just universally agreed-upon information." I find the idea of describing but not engaging disputes very compelling, even just as a writing exercise.

So this might be a silly question, but which disputes are we describing? In your international trade example, are we describing the dispute between the parties, or the dispute as presented in reputable sources (i.e. trying to convey the dispute between significant opinions of reputable sources)? The boundaries do get fuzzy, but I think a distinction can be drawn. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 05:38, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Imagine a trade dispute between Oceania and Eurasia.

• There are some agreed-upon facts: it started with a dispute over a farmer's pigs, Oceania imports more from Eurasia than it exports to Eurasia, Oceania's economy is smaller than Eurasia, Eurasia imposed import tariffs on Oceania's food exports, etc.
• There are some viewpoints (facts or opinions that depend on who's making the statement): This is going to make our residents feel better/worse, this isn't reasonable/unreasonable behavior, this is what you/we deserved, this is going to improve our economy at the expense of your economy, this is going to support/harm/have no effect on our traditional industry, President Politician said some appropriate/inflammatory things, etc.

We don't want anything that is not from a reputable source. But we also don't want either viewpoint to be presented as a universal, agreed-upon fact. So: "In Oceania, people felt that... In Eurasia, people felt that..." or "In Oceania, businesses responded by... In Eurasia, consumers responded by..." WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:45, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Thankyou. This is around where my head is at, although I'm ruminating on it in the background. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 01:41, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

One of the things that may be difficult for some editors is thinking of a two-way trade dispute as needing to have (at least) three sides represented: Oceania's side, Eurasia's side, and the consensus view among scholars. We don't have to present Oceania's or Eurasia's side as being correct, but a neutral article will acknowledge that those two views existed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:49, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Mm. I have told an editor they are not editing neutrally before because whenever they described a matter I could understand the rationale of one side and the other was inscrutable. In other cases, I have been concerned that an article failed to describe rather than engage a dispute because it was reflecting the literature on a subjective question, my thoughts being that we ought to be describing the content of a dispute rather than strictly its demographics. Another case that may concern me is the lead of Elon Musk, which describes him as a polarizing figure and then lists off a dozen things he has been criticized for and nothing that explains why some may view him positively or what they view him positively for. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 04:07, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I suppose that sometimes the other side is inscrutable. I would expect that many of our FTN regulars would struggle to make sense of a religious POV, and for most adherents to a religion to struggle to make sense of a different religion's appeal. So perhaps if we encounter an inscrutable 'side', the answer is that we need more/different editors to help us.

In the case of the Musk BLP, are you looking for formal balance, like "He has been praised for _____ and criticized for ____"? Because another way of looking at it is that the first three paragraphs are all praise ("his leadership", "wealthiest person in the world", "led innovations", "a leader"...). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:57, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

With the editor I was dealing with, the sources very clearly gave one side's perspective which they omitted. You can't include everything before going into overdetail, but when you are only explaining your side and leaving the other side's actions obscure you are to my mind POV-pushing.

The Elon matter may betray my own reading biases. It wasn't clear that I was meant to associate these achievements of his businesses with Elon personally, and being the richest person is not self evidently a good thing, especially when he is framed as the son of a wealthy family. Perhaps nothing has to be changed. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 07:03, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

A Barnstar for You

		The Constitutional Barnstar
		For sustained, patient, and excellent communication regarding the interplay between BURDEN and V Jclemens (talk) 09:49, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. The interplay between the various rules is complex. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:36, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Could not possibly agree more!!! Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 01:00, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Preference profiles - Scripts vs WMF dev

Should I post on technical or gadgets/scripts/technical asking whether it is possible?

It would be cool if it was, as I am running on the assumption for everything else I would like that scripts, gadgets, and off wiki tools are the way to go, rather than WMF dev.

(The preference profile idea is because I am still trying to work out ways to reduce conflict, and improve editor experience.

Someone told me the other day that it was negative to be concerned about it - but I really don't like bullies and I have read too many of the revert edit summaries, and user talk attacks.) Wakelamp (talk) d[@-@]b 14:18, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I think that you should ask at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) about whether a script could do all the things you want. It may not be possible, and if that's the case, then ruling out that option would be helpful. If it is possible, then it would probably be faster to take that approach than to wait for MediaWiki devs (paid or volunteer). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:36, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Appreciate your advice. The idea is not generating much interest. I think it is important as it seems a major reason why some editors are against GUI change, and would allow us to have different gadgets for new editors that might reduce revert, and new article AfD rate.

What do you think of the idea? And what would have been a better approach? Am I too verbose? Wakelamp (talk) d[@-@]b 02:22, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I suspect that the problem is that too few editors want to switch the appearance of the pages in between tasks. I can't see your idea working for me/my workflow. I often have a dozen Wikipedia tabs open, with multiple half-completed tasks. Finishing an "editing" task may require checking diffs, Special:Contributions, block logs, and more; doing a "communication" task might require editing an article. And no matter what I'm doing, I might be interrupted with a notification (most of which can wait, but some are easy to deal with at the time). I almost never sit down to a single task/single type of task to be performed without interruption, so I'd never want to have a specialized layout for that purpose. If more editors are like me, then that limits the potential "market" for your idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:58, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank-you for your reply. I have um a few lot more than 12 wikipedia tabs open, but I use tab groups to split them. (The best thing since sliced bread for me is connecting up a second screen - my partner works in digital archiving and they have 4 plus an Amiga screen open much to my envy.) But I always encourage new editors to be working on three things so they don't take reverts to much to heart.

The idea wasn't about screen layouts (although I would like an option to click on edit and bring up the article history and the talk page in sperate windows), but more about allowing editors to stay as they are (which was a major issue with Vector and I expect the same for hybrid search) and allowing new editors to have things to encourage different behaviour

• "Display an assessment of an article's quality in its page header"
• Check whether article is good enough to increase article quality
• An easier revert process (copy the revert to the article talk page and start a discussion)
• Possibly new gadget advising them of the risk dragon
• An easier template removal process

Wakelamp (talk) d[@-@]b 12:40, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I like this image of a risk dragon.

Ultimately, I think that most editors, and especially those who can't do Javascript or CSS themselves, are better off sticking with the default skin and popular gadgets. Otherwise, one little thing will change, their setup will break, and they won't be able to fix it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:24, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For your extremely diligent focus on improving clarity and understanding at WP:V. We need more editors like yourself. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 14:35, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:34, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

You need MORE barnstars for what you do for Wikipedia! Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 00:59, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Yet another barnstar for you ...

Yeah, I see all the other barnstars above ... but you deserve yet another one:

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	For your work improving Wikipedia:Citing sources. I suggested an improvement to the guideline, and got some pushback in the Talk page. You came along and followed-up and boldly implemented the improvement. I don't know who you are, or what your background is ... but I know that Wikipedia needs a lot more editors like you. Noleander (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words.

I like barnstars. We should do more with them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:10, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	You have been a tireless contributor on WP:V. Wikipedia would be far worse off without you here. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 00:59, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. We seem to be agreeing with each other at WT:V. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:16, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

100%. An update of wording over there is absolutely necessary. Obviously.. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 02:27, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Philosophy Barnstar
		For the baseball umpires example on your user page. A fine example of complementarity variables. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:00, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm glad you liked reading it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:43, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

multitasking

And fwiw I wrote 1 2 articles today during that. My family estimate I may be in the 98th %ile for intellectual energy. :D Valereee (talk) 19:14, 13 February 2026 (UTC)ua

I checked the second out from the local library, but had to take it back before I could get very far. I've made her "Sunday night cake" in Classic Home Cooking by Richard Sax before. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:52, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

That reminds me: Did we ever decide what to do after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fudge cake? It looks like there was a contested WP:BLAR in April 2024. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:56, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

I've merged the content. It's a lot at Chocolate cake. I actually suspect someone could recreate the article. Valereee (talk) 12:38, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

I'd only taken it out for research before, but writing the article has made me want to go back and read The Taste through, maybe make some of the recipes, although it sounds like In Pursuit is more practical for that for home cooks. Valereee (talk) 12:41, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

In Pursuit was a good read. Most recently, I was looking at Salt Fat Acid Heat (book). I'm not sure that I'd want to have the book, but it feels like it would be a good one for a Baking with Julia-type project: Just start at the beginning and cook one dish after another. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:41, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

I have baked multiple times in response to a technical on The Great British Bakeoff. One of my favorites was the fig rolls. One of the tastiest was the Kouign amman, but man what a PITA. One of the most difficult was English muffins. Still haven't gotten those reliably to exactly where I want them. For Æbleskiver I actually bought a pan. Valereee (talk) 18:59, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

I attempted kouign amman once but need more practice. It tasted great – exactly what you'd expect for a recipe whose ingredients are butter, flour, butter, yeast, butter, salt, butter, water, butter, sugar, butter, and some more butter – but didn't look pretty. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Amazement

Well, as they say: expect the unexpected. I was amazed to receive a thank you note from you. Just amazed. I had no idea I was on you good guy list, given that we have hardly ever agreed on anything. My stupidity I guess. But thank you, thank you anyway. Cheers. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 04:15, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

You're welcome. Wikipedia needs people who can disagree without being disagreeable about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:02, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Nomination of Endemic COVID-19 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Endemic COVID-19, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Endemic COVID-19 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 16 February 2026 (UTC)