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

Embedded links in Gerardus Mercator

Hi WhatamIdoing. Would mind taking a peek at the way external links are being embedded at the very end of Gerardus Mercator#Epitaph and legacy and throughout Gerardus Mercator#Works? I stumble upon them while checking on something else in the article and am just curious as to whether they're OK. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:35, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

That's a really strange set up. I suspect that part of the problem is not knowing about Template:Interlanguage link, but the main part is trying to provide links to images and sources. It's more bibliography than article.

What do you think about converting the globes and maps sections to a table? Or even (mostly) splitting them off into Globes by Mercator and Maps by Mercator? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:57, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

My apologies for not responding sooner. I pretty much know zero about the subject matter and can't say whether a split or tables would be a good idea; the "Epitaph and legacy" section, however, does look better after you cleaned things up. Reformating the links as WP:ILL like you did seems to have taken care of things there.

The Gerardus Mercator#Works section, though, seems to be more of an issue (at least to me) since it includes embedded external links to museums, images, maps, archives, and other things. Does there really need to be a embedded link to offical website of Royal Museums Greenwich (regardless of whether Royal Museums Greenwich now exists). I didn't dig through the page's history to check, but maybe the "Works" section just started out as a simple bullet list-type "bibliography" like the "Books" section and morphed into something more prose-like over time. Perhaps some of the embedded links were originally added as embedded citations and should now be converted into more standard inline citations. As I mentioned above in my OP, I only came upon this while checking on something else (some images) and the links, particularly the ones with pdf icons, in the text really stood out to me. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:46, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Have a look: Gerardus Mercator#Maps and Maps by Gerardus Mercator.

It might be possible to halve the first. The old description of the Mercator 1595 Atlas is about 600 words long and should probably be split to its own article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:07, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Diff bug

Please file this as a phab task or I'll forget it! (I'm on sabbatical again ⛱️) ESanders (WMF) (talk) 10:43, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Airport RfCs

You're probably thinking of WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT… Danners430 _{tweaks made} 17:59, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

What I'm really thinking is that we seem to need an official WP:GUIDELINE instead of an informal WikiProject WP:ADVICEPAGE that spells out the results of the RFCs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:09, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't disagree… it would certainly help…! Danners430 _{tweaks made} 18:12, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

In particular, Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/page content says "well-sourced", and what we apparently need is something more detailed. Imagine something that says:

• Y Yes:
• official airport websites even though they're neither independent nor secondary,
• brief or routine announcements in little local newspapers,
• laundry lists in independent aviation trade magazines...
• N No:
• Google Flights, as it's just ever-changing search results,
• that one website wasted ten thousand words arguing about,
• etc.

It doesn't matter to me which category the various items were listed in; the point would be that there would be a list of all the usual suspects, and editors could look at the list to find the thing they were arguing about. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:15, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

New cross-language page link: Cinnamon Roll Day

A new page Kanelbullens dag on the Polish Wikipedia has been linked to page Cinnamon Roll Day, which you created, via Wikidata (Q3192626).

You will not be notified about future links to pages you created. To opt in to these notifications, follow the opt-in instructions.

NervousBot (talk) 15:01, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Changes on sex article

Hello, I noticed you have added some changes to the sex article which include terminology. There are some issues here. While I don’t think that medical diagnostic terms should be present and without proper context in a page about the biological concept of sex, if you are going to introduce them, which are plainly in contrast to the rest of the article, it is important to clarify these are not definitions of sex nor biology terminology but old medical diagnostic terms. The reliance on so few sources is an issue as well. The source linked to “hormonal sex” does not use such a term. In fact, the sources you cite actually are directly about diagnostics and descriptions of intersex conditions. An additional issue is thatgenetic and chromosomal sex mean the same thing. Genetic sex does not refer to presence of the SRY gene and the source used actually indicates both refer to sex chromosomes. they actually use genetic sex and chromosomal sex interchangably. It is also important to note that insects do not use “chromosomal sex” and the article you cite is about sex determination systems, not identifying chcromosomal sex. Here you conflate genetic sex determination with geneic sex and chromosomal sex. Genetic sex determination does not refer to identifying genetic sex. It refers to the biological concept of determination of the gonads being causes be genetics. For example there is also environmental sex determination but we don’t have “environmental sex”. It also appears that two senses “determination” is being conflated here. Sex determination is a developmental biology concept and is not about diagnostics. You should delete this section as it only serves to confuse people by conflating biology and medicine. Such terminology should belong in pages discussing intersex. I understand that there were some links to terminology to this page, including a page that doesn’t even refer to “hormonal sex” but rather than add out of place terminology to a biology page, the links should be removed. Another issue is that the descriptions of the terminology can also be extremely confusing. It is an unfortunate coincidence that the term “sex determination” exists and many of the descriptions of these medical terms use “determine” in a laysense. In general, the use of determine with regard to the biological sense is so common that anyone looking for information is likely to be confused when encountering medical terminology that uses “determine” as well. If these terms are to say in the article then another word besides “determine” such as identify or diagnose should be used and that these are not definitions of sex. Vortexofdoom (talk) 17:22, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Where are your sources?

Where is your logic? For example, if a species has a genetic sex-determination system, then what would you call the result of that system in any individual, if not the individual's genetic sex?

I agree that this terminology is largely useful when discussing developmental disorders. I would even agree that those disorders are largely only researched in the context of humans and fruit flies (e.g., because in fruit flies, an XY chromosome pair with a non-functional Sxl gene produces a different result than an XY chromosome pair with a functional Sxl gene). The terms serve a purpose when trying to speak precisely. "Sex" means a lot of things to a lot of people, but "gametic sex" has a single meaning.

I wonder if you would be interested in reading this:

Wright, Colin M. (November 2025). "Why There Are Exactly Two Sexes". Archives of Sexual Behavior (Commentary). 54 (10): 3941–3945. doi:10.1007/s10508-025-03348-3. ISSN 1573-2800. PMC 12753526. PMID 41188510.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:47, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

That's hardly a reliable source. Katzrockso (talk) 18:51, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Of course; it's a commentary. But it may be interesting to read. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:17, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't wish reading anything Colin Wright has written onto my worst enemy Katzrockso (talk) 00:02, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Seems like you have a bias. The commentary is pretty standard stuff. The sources are clear. You might not like his personal opinions but he is correct about the topic and his statements are accurate. Vortexofdoom (talk) 01:42, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

No, as I already explained, sex determination is a biology concept. Determination in developmental biology does not refer to identifying. Genetic sex is a medical term. Genetic sex is not used for other organisms. Genetic sex determination does not refer to what sex chromosomes an organism has. It refers to the fact that the process of sex determination is started by genes, not the environment. If you were correct there would be “environmental sex” fir alligators. There are organisms that have genetic sex determination that is neither based on sex chromosomes nor the SRY gene. Genetic sex is not a definition of sex. As your own sources establish, they are diagnostic terms used in medicine when describing patients with intersex conditions. Note that your own source on flies do not call it their “genetic sex”. The terms are not just useful for intersex conditions, it’s why they exist. They derive from John Money and his research with intersex conditions. You can even see them in that page.

Yes, people can refer to many things when they talk about sex. But, the page is on the biological understanding of sex. Not medical diagnostic terms. They completely contradict the rest of the article. It is especially relevant as the page goes over sex determination systems in a biological sense. Using determine in these terms and conflating them with sex determination systems can and will only cause confusion. Putting terms with overlapping language that don’t have the proper context is a very bad idea.

As for the source you presented, I am confused why you provided it as it highlights the issues I just mentioned. It explains what sex determination systems refer to and clearly distinguishes that from terminology like “genetic sex” . As it mentions, those terms are not definitions of sex nor biology terms.

So as I said, besides spreading confusion, these terms are medical diagnostic terms, some aren’t even in the sources used, and they are not appropriate to be linked to the biology understanding of sex. Vortexofdoom (talk) 19:44, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

I think we're trying to talk about too many things at once. I'll pick one, and let's try to focus on that until we either reach agreement or determine that we can't agree. Here's the first point I pick:

You claim that the term genetic sex is not used for non-human species. I think this is factually incorrect.

I invite you to consider these quotations:

• "The Effects of Maternal Steroids During the Time of Genetic Sex Determination on the Six of Avian Offspring": "Gonadal sex was available for 65 embryos and always agreed with the genetic sex" of the bird.
• Genetic Sex Differentiation in Fish: "These findings implicate that the function/expression of one or more genes in genetic cascade of sex determination system is altered resulting in the reversal of the genetic sex to the opposite phenotypic sex"
• "Genetic Analysis of the Sex Determination Mechanism of White Sturgeon (Acipenser Transmontanus Richardson)": "The genetic sex of many species cannot be deduced by external morphology – a problem that is usually exacerbated when dealing with embryonic or juvenile forms."
• "Sexual Differentiation in Vertebrates": "Normally, the pathway of differentiation to form testes or ovaries is determined by the genetic sex established at fertilization. Nevertheless, this process can be influenced by nongenetic factors . It has been demonstrated in amphibia, birds, and mammals that testes very well may develop in genetic females..."
• Development of the Nervous System: "In fruit flies and other insects, the genetic sex of each cell is the key determinant.  If a cell has a single X, then it is male."

Now: Based on these quotations, do you now think it is true or false to say that "Genetic sex is a medical term. Genetic sex is not used for other organisms"? Can we agree on this single point? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:24, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Okay be honest, you’re using AI and you didn’t actually read these sources, did you? So, these are not quotes. The AI you are using is hallucinating. These quotes are not present in any of these sources. Not even sure if your Development of the Nervous system is from since the only result coming up is wikipedia which doesn’t say it.

Now, given that your own sources do not use it and you didn’t read them, that your own sources in the article identify them as medical terms, and the Wright paper also does so, what do you think this means. Vortexofdoom (talk) 21:00, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

In fact, some of these sources don’t appear to exist. Do you have the links and page numbers? You including a dissertation and a book. Vortexofdoom (talk) 21:03, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

I found all of them via Google Books. (I don't use AI tools.) If you go to https://books.google.com and copy/paste the quotation in, you should find it easily (unless I made a typo). For example, https://www.google.com/search?udm=36&q=%22Gonadal+sex+was+available+for+65+embryos+and+always+agreed+with+the+genetic+sex%22 takes you to the first. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:06, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Okay so google books actually uses AI. That’s not actually a quote. Note that the title isn’t even correct. “On the six”. Second is on genetic sex determination, you should have read it. Third is hallucinated, no such quote is in it. Fourth is a chapter by a medical researcher. The last is a human nervois system book by medical researchers.

So given that genetic sex is consistently used in medicine and specifically with regard to intersex conditions, is consistently differentiated with sex determination, and your source for all of those terms being used, and some that weren’t, how can you claim you’ve read them and how can you claim they are not medical terminology? Like I said, you are mixing up many different concepts and the page is on the biological idea if sex, not medical diagnostic terminology. Please delete your changes or make corrections and clarify that these are not definitions of sex not biology terminology. Vortexofdoom (talk) 22:22, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Google Books uses AI? In what way? How do you think used AI when they digitized that book in 2010, but AI tools weren't readily available until a few years ago? I suspect that you have mistaken an ordinary, old-fashioned OCR error for an AI use.

You should be able to find the quotation in the third book if you search for part of the quotation, such as "genetic sex of many species cannot be deduced by external morphology", excluding the punctuation. Punctuation such as en dashes does not always work in Google Books.

I'm not ready to discuss whether genetic sex is medical terminology. I'm still trying to see if we can agree whether genetic sex is, or isn't, ever used to describe non-human animals. What do you think? Are those statements about fish and birds and so forth actually using the term genetic sex to describe those non-human animals? Or do you stand by your claim that the term "Genetic sex is not used for other organisms"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:27, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

“ Determination on the Six of Avian Offspring”

the Six of Avian Offspring. There is no quote in it. Third book? Okay you didnmt read it and you’re using AI. Yes, google books uses AI. You’re not really addressing anything I’ve said and you clearly haven’t read what you cited. Your own sources do not agree with you. You need to go through them and read them carefully. I have given you the history of the term. A source you brought up but didn’t read source has as well. You need to explain why your own sources use it in a medical context, why some don’t even exist, and why they consistently do not say it is about the SRY gene like you thought. You need to explain why there isn’t “environmental sex” and why you’re having so much trouble finding terms you believe are biology terms used in biology literature. You need to address why your sources are medical books and specifically on DSDs. You need to explain why your sources for hormonal sex say no such thing. You need to explain why you will find these terms in medical dictionaries but not biology dictionaries. You need to explain why you made a claim about the genetic sex of flies when your source never once uses genetic sex because it is on sex determination systems.

Do you accept that genetic sex does not refer to genetic sex determination. Do you accept that determination has a particular meaning in developmental biology and thus presenting these terms, which are not about sex determination to begin with, are not definitions of sex? Do you accept that you provided me with sources which include some which do not exist or do not say what you quoted? Do you acknowledge that the section is contradictory towards the article and is not a biology perspective? Vortexofdoom (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't understand why you're having trouble finding these sources. Maybe you're the one using AI?

1. Book here: https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Effects_of_Maternal_Steroids_During/7UxPAAAAYAAJ You can read the quotation here. The whole thing is about birds, not humans.
2. Book here: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Genetic_Sex_Differentiation_in_Fish/-MHMBQAAQBAJ You can read the quotation here. The whole book is about fish, not humans.
3. Book here: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Genetic_Analysis_of_the_Sex_Determinatio/tQVobu8A01gC You can read the quotation here. The whole book is about fish, not humans.
4. Book here: https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Origin_and_Evolution_of_Sex/OcsdAQAAIAAJ You can read the quotation here. This book is about sex generally, so it covers both humans and non-humans.
5. Book here: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Development_of_the_Nervous_System/TmGdDwAAQBAJ You can read the quotation here, in the last paragraph of the first column.

I'm literally asking you a basic reading comprehension-type question. Let me try re-phrasing it. You can pretend that it's a test in school:

The text in question says "The genetic sex of many species cannot be deduced by external morphology" (emphasis added).

True or false: Based on this sentence, it would be correct to say that the words 'genetic sex' are only ever used to say something about humans. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:27, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Okay, you’re not actually reading anything I said. You need to actually read the sources. Like, access the entire document. Once again: the book on fish is on sex determination. It’s also translated. Note that it uses sex and gender interchangeably. Once again: the third is not a book. It’s a dissertation. You need to read it. Not part of it. Not a snippet. It literally says it is a diagnostic term. The fourth quite literally says it is diagnostics term as well. That book is a collection of different authors writing different chapters. The section you are reading was from a medical scientist. It clearly uses determine in a certain sense. Note that it says determination of the gonads. Because this is refering to genetic sex determination, not the medical term genetic sex. Again, you need to actually read it. The fifth is a neuroscience book. Once again, it differentiates between sex determination and the medical term “genetic sex”.

You need to actually read my comments and your own sources. You are arguing that the terms you found in medical texts, that you are struggling to find elsewhere are biology terms. They are not. This is why you will find them in medical dictionaries, not biology dictionaries. This terminology originated from John Money in the 1950s. Vortexofdoom (talk) 01:37, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

I need you to understand that just because you believe (you misread several) that you found a term in a keyword search, does not mean that it is not a medical term. I need you to understand that you quite literally are citing sources that directly say you are wrong. You are struggling to find examples and each one you do is not consistent with what you said. You are not reading what you cite. This is an issue.

Tell you what, since you totally are reading this. What do each of your sources say genetic sex and all the other terms (strange they are missing) mean? How do you reconcile them contradicting you? Vortexofdoom (talk) 01:40, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

I've never said that genetic sex is not a medical term. I'm trying to establish whether we can agree that it is not always a human medical term. As in: Sometimes veterinarians use this term, too. You do not seem to be able to agree with me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:07, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Okay so sometimes a medical diagnostic term is rarely used outside it’s primary use? Okay, cool. It shouldn’t be in a biology orientated page Vortexofdoom (talk) 02:15, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm glad that we have been able to agree that the term genetic sex is not exclusively a human medical term. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:17, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

It is a medical term and it is about diagnostics, so it does not belong on the page, especially not with the context and the conflation of different concepts. Do you agree? Vortexofdoom (talk) 06:35, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

We just don't seem to be able to agree on the facts. Once again:

• This term is used in a paper about fish.
• Fish are not humans.
• Ergo, this term is not exclusively about human medicine.

If you can't figure this out, then please consider reporting yourself to WP:ANI and requesting a block. Tell them that you have NOTHERE and CIR problems; they'll understand. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:42, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

You’re backtracking. Not “these terms” you quite literally struggling to support your claim about one meanwhile you admit it is a medical term. Stating that someone at some point has used it outside of a medical context does not change the fact that they do not belong in the article. You got them wrong. You mixed up two entirely different concepts. Do you accept they are diagnostic terms, not definitions of sex? Do you accept they are medical terms? Do you accept they do not refer to genetic sex determination?

You avoiding the central issue here that you are, perhaps purposely, trying to cause a misunderstanding on the page. You used sources which do not agree with you. They don’t mention “hormonal sex”. You included “gametic sex” which was a term your source coined to avoid confusion when discussing intersex conditions. Your source used genetic and chromosomal sex interchangably. Both referred to sex chromosomes which again was in a medical context. Even your sources you tried to cite now also used it this way. The source you cited for “hormonal sex” does not mention “hormonal sex”. The disagreement here is the fact that you seem unwilling to change confirmed issues here. Even if you want to keep the terms, the lack of clarity and misrepresented sources are not justifiable. I have asked you to address these but you seem fixated on arguing that at some point you can find obscure sources that used it as shorthand, not as terminology in question. Sources you didn’t read.

If you can’t address the issues, there is no justification for keeping what you added Vortexofdoom (talk) 23:21, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Please do not speak about competence when you cannot be bothered to read what was said. You are unable to address what I said and are making strawman arguments. The claim that the term has never been used ever outside of humans, especially by those whose education was oriented towards medicine was never claimed. Point out a book translated from another language that does not cite nor explain said terminology, and is not using the term but using shorthand for referring sex determination does mean it is not a medical diagnostic term. That does not mean it wasn’t coined for evaluating intersex conditions. That does not mean that you can conflate different meanings in different contexts. That does not mean the source you cited, which does not support what you cited it for, is not an issue. That does not mean that you didn’t cite a paper that said nothing about genetic sex and certainly did not match the definition you gave which has nothing to do with the topic of said paper, sex determination systems. I need you to understand and accept that.

I will give you a very simple example so you understand. Sex determination is a biology term, right? I explained to you what it means. Now, can you find a medical paper that uses the words “sex determination” not as a term but referring to physicians determining what the sex of an infant is? Yes, you absolutely can. Does that mean that on a page about sex determination systems in biology you add an entirely different meaning that is discordant with the topic using a medical paper casually using it to mean how they identify the sex if an infant?

The issue here is you are more interested in being defensive and trying to find some sort of win. You don’t actually care that you are actively trying to spread confusion. Vortexofdoom (talk) 23:39, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Tell you what, we have a perfect case. Here is a paper that uses “sex determination” in a forensic sense.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17624707/

Obviously you read the page and know that sex determination is a biology term with a specific meaning, right? Well here’s the page on the biology concept of sex determination. Go add a section about sex being determined by measurements of bones. There’s no issue, right?

Sex-determination system Vortexofdoom (talk) 23:49, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Well it seems like you can’t agree on basic facts and logic. If you can’t defend your inclusion, remove it. I was trying to be respectful and engage you but you’re far too stubborn to admit when you’re wrong. Vortexofdoom (talk) 23:54, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Mail call

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:44, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

Passcode grid

Hello WhatamIdoing,

In https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PeterEasthope#Passcode_gri you wrote, "We don't have an article on Passcode grid. Would you like to write ...".

Thanks. Don't have time to spare but can give it a try, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 15:13, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, @PeterEasthope. Wikipedia:There is no deadline, and it might be easiest to start with a paragraph in a related article. I hope that you're able to write something for this when you can make some time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:22, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi,

A simple draft is in my sandbox. Comments welcome. If it becomes acceptable, I can create a new article or add a section somewhere. Multi-factor authentication? Electronic authentication?

Since you suggested the addition, I've scanned a few the articles pertaining to authentication. Appears to be plenty of scope for improvement.

Thx, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 15:34, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

That looks good, and I feel like I know more than I did before. Thanks.

Sources will be the key point for getting it into the mainspace. I've found these; would any of them be useful to you?

• https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/news/newsroom/tax-tips/tax-tips-2026/cra-account-users-encouraged-add-backup-multi-factor-authentication-option.html
• https://www.google.com/books/edition/Tax_Administration_2022_Comparative_Info/ItJ2EAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22passcode+grid%22&pg=PA49&printsec=frontcover

I think it could go after Multi-factor authentication#Mobile phone-based authentication and in Electronic authentication#Methods. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:23, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. I've improved the explanation and corrected at least one error. Also gave a link to Revenue Canada documentation. Unfortunately, haven't found a detailed example at Rev. Ca. If you can review again, please let me know whether it's more understandable or otherwise.
Thanks, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 23:06, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the first sentence ("A passcode is a password derived from a passcode grid"), because while that's true, people also use passcode for other passwords. The rest looks good. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:50, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Writing in a natural language is at least as difficult as writing source code; probably more difficult. Another overhaul is done. Better? To me it's ready to post or almost.
Thx, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 17:43, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

The first paragraph may not be needed if it's put in the existing articles. Also, it probably shouldn't have a WP:SELFREF to Wikimedia (just say "similar to a recovery code list" and stop).

What about refs? Links to other articles? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:45, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Revenue Canada is the only reference I've found. Connecting to other articles is relatively straightforward. I believe the topic is suitable for a new article but some editors may object. Do you object to or condone a new article? Thx, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 16:20, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

I think it's too risky to try a separate article. It'll be much less contentious to just add it to an existing article. It can always be WP:SPLIT later if we get more sources.

Do you know whether there is another name for this idea? https://www.logintc.com/blog/what-is-grid-card-authentication-and-what-are-the-benefits/ seems to call it a "grid card authentication". If another name is more popular, that might explain why we're struggling to find additional sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:08, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes, the same concept. Cyphercor is offering commercial implementation support. I've overhauled the last paragraph accordingly and added a comment about Linux. Thanks, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 14:45, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Do you want me to format the refs for you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:17, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Footnote style references rather than direct external links? OK, yes, please. Thanks, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 12:19, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

I've done that, and added a couple. I didn't see a link for the Linux claim or for the (n x n)^m calculation of how many possible passcodes are in the grid. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:53, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the references.

Distinguish between server and client. The client authenticates itself to the server.

Automation is optoinal for the client. J. Doe can pick the strings out of the grid and send the password to the server. Automation is essential for the server.

For the Linux situation, A search for "passcode grid in Linux" gives,
1. Enterprise PAM Integration.
Commercially available from LoginTC.

and
2. Open-Source Alternates (pam_matrix / pam_grid)
with a link to https://pam-sso.sourceforge.net/ . There see a notice: "... alfa development stage, don't use it in production!". Not absolutely clear to casual reading.

Better to refrain from mentioning Linux?

(n x n)^m is arithmetic. The grid has n x n cells. Suppose m cells are to be chosen. There are n x n choices for the first. n x n choices for the second. ... n x n choices for the mth. That is (n x n)x(n x n)x ...(n x n) = (n x n)^m. For n = 5 and m = 3, (n x n)^m = (5 x 5)³ = 15625. Regards, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 15:19, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes, maybe we should just not mention Linux at this point.

I'm not sure whether (n x n)^m will pass WP:CALC, but I think it's okay, and if someone complains, we can always remove it.

We don't have the sources needed to justify a separate article. Do you want to copy/paste this into a new section at Multi-factor authentication or at Electronic authentication? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:01, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

There now. I'm not sure that the sentence "Recovery codes obtained by an adversary can be used directly to defeat security." helps or distracts. I had to change two characters in the references for character set compatibility. Also corrected two references elsewhere in the document. Thx, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 20:45, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

If you're doubting it, I suggest taking it out. You could always put it back later. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:42, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the extensive help with this little project. Further discussion can also be in the Talk page. Thx, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 14:18, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

You're welcome. Congratulations on expanding that article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:45, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

"Helper" monkeys

hey, just wanted to send you a note because our convo on the Service Animals page inspired me to do a whole zine issue about the topic! If you'd like a complimentary PDF of it, feel free to email me at apesht.zine at gmail and I'd be happy to send you one. See also apesht.org (I know zines aren't considered reliable sources for Wiki purposes but I had fun making it.) Monkeywire (talk) 17:05, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Congratulations on your new publication! I really appreciate your recent work to remove promotional content from Animal sanctuary, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:56, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

WP:WPSCH mailing list

The list was made by adding around 200 recent new members, sorted with regex and replacing the old mailing list. I then began updating by removing names of inactive users and updating names that had changed to the correct new talk pages. What do you suppose this is?. If you have a solution, please let me know, even if it was an error of mine. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:16, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

That's a broken link, but a glance at your contributions shows that you have expanded Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Mailing list (2021 creation date) with a single edit and are now removing names from Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Message list (2016 creation date). Maybe merge those two lists?

And please seriously consider having the bot take the inactive names out instead of doing it all by hand. I'm sure you could find more pleasant uses for your time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:39, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Request of Arbitration opened

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Airlines and Aviation and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use. Star Mississippi 03:18, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

years of attention

Regarding this comment: did you mean to say "'This is an important subject'" instead of "unimportant"? isaacl (talk) 22:06, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

No, I didn't. I'm trying to help that editor understand that "significant" in notability terms doesn't mean coverage saying the subject is significant/important/consequential/essential. We can have articles about insignificant things if they get enough volume of media/source coverage. A source saying "This is a worthless stupid thing that nobody should care about, and I'm going to spend the next 16 paragraphs explaining exactly what it is, with a detailed analysis of exactly why it's so trivial, pointless, and unimportant" is Wikipedia:Significant coverage (="16 paragraphs") in a Wikipedia:Secondary source (="analysis"). If we get a series of such sources spread over years, it's Wikipedia:Sustained coverage, too. If they don't have a COI, then they're Wikipedia:Independent sources – and with those four points, the unimportant subject has qualified for a Wikipedia:Separate, stand-alone article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:20, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

(But thank you for the note, because that very well could have been one of those unfortunate opposite-of-intended statements. I've made that kind of mistake too many times to count.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:21, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

I did think that's what you meant, but wanted to double-check. It might be more clear, given the following sentence, to use "not significant" instead. isaacl (talk) 22:31, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

You're probably right. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:51, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Airline destinations. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Airline destinations/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 14, 2026 at 23:59 UTC, which is when the evidence phase closes. For the first week of the evidence phase, you may request for additional parties to be added. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Airline destinations/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party guide/Introduction. For the Arbitration Committee, Sennecaster (Chat) 19:33, 31 October 2026 (UTC)