Wikipedia

User talk:CFCF/Archive 23

< User talk:CFCF
Latest comment: 7 years ago by CFCF in topic NS
Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25→Archive 30

Wikidata weekly summary #242

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Development
    • When a {{#statements:…}} property couldn't be resolved, a tracking category will be added (phab:T50799)
    • Rewrote Special:NewItem and all other Special:New… pages to use OOUI error handling (phab:T150205)
    • Getting ready the basic Lexeme prototype (phab:T146662)
    • Continued work on federation basics (phab:T149580)
    • Release version 1.0.0 of the DataTypes component
    • Enjoying the holidays and getting ready for this year's challenges. Hope you do to :)

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here.

Acne Vulgaris FAC Take 2

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hey Carl, thanks for checking out the acne vulgaris FAC. That whole debacle came about with an administrator (IMO) prematurely closing the previous FAC without notifying me (I voiced my disgruntlement about this since pinging requires minimal effort and forward progress was occurring) but a new FAC has new been opened if you're interested in weighing in with support/opposition/suggestions. Thanks! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 15:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Reverting Closure at AfD for Pressure Point

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello,

You seem to have been involved with the discussion at the AfD for Pressure Point. I understand your concern with my closure of this AfD. I would simply remind you to follow the process outlined at WP:BADNAC if you disagree rather than revert the closure twice. Only an administrator should re-open a Non-Admin closure if deeming it inappropriate. I will not revert war the closure and let someone else determine what the consensus is.

Thanks and Happy New Year! -- Dane talk 08:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Psychoanalysis

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I think it would be best if you left the hatting off the talk page. Edit warring to restore it (when you seem to be alone in wanting to restore it) is unprofitable and a diversion from the main task of improving the article. If you don't find the conversation you hatted to be helpful ignore it and start a more helpful thread. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 16:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Kim Dent-Brown — I think you'll find that is an inaccurate interpretation of the situation. Manaus reverted with very little rationale for doing so, and there is indication that there were more people than me who wanted the fruitless debate coming from FreeKnowledgeCreator to subside. The hatting followed a previous argument with a very hostile tone directed at MrsCaptcha. However I will not act further, but it would be good if someone looked into the tone, and if not WP:DONTBITE was violated in treating MrsCaptcha. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 07:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
That's excellent news that you won't revert further, thank you. I am indeed monitoring the tone of everyone at the Talk page and I won't hesitate to intervene with anyone who perpetuates conflict although I'm not going to use my admin tools there. Collaborating with folks we get on with is easy. Collaborating with folks we are in conflict with is harder, but possible! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 11:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #242

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here.

Tech News: 2017-02

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

Problems

  • Editors who use Firefox 50 might get logged out or fail to save their edits. This is because of a browser bug. Until this is fixed you can enter about:config in the address bar and set network.cookie.maxPerHost to 5000. Firefox 50 is the current version of the Firefox. [5]

Changes this week

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

19:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

"420" collaboration

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hey, not sure if you'd be interested in contributing personally or not, but some WikiProject Cannabis members are organizing a 420 collaboration in April. I know some people hear 'cannabis' and immediately envision lazy stoners, but I'd like to get as much community buy-in for this collaboration as possible so we can improve many Wikipedia articles. My hope is that you and Wiki Project Med will support our efforts, especially by improving articles related to medical marijuana and health. I'll be pinging other Wiki Project Med board members and participants for help, too, but just wanted to give you a heads up. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: December 2016

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 


Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

unicode in user-sig not showing up properly

Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Hello Carl, you have the following unicode in your username-signature:

  • Carl Fredrik 💌 📧

But those particular character-glyphs don't seem to be functional on all computer systems at the moment. I just see a small black box with the unicode codepoint, rather than graphical talk-to-me icon and graphical email-me icons that you are trying to display. This is a browser-specific or operating-system-specific problem, I'm sure they look fine for you, but they are not going to be visible for a fair number of wikipedians until unicode font support for the new emoji and wingdings is more widespread. Can you pick more common glyphs, or use imagefiles, in the meantime please? Here is a (non-libre! so not useful for your purposes) imagefile generated server-side: http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/1f48c/browsertest.htm 47.222.203.135 (talk) 13:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, there is a typo on your userpage, please change "I have too many interest for my own good and" into the "too many interests" plural form. I would fix it myself, but some kind of new bot prevents anons from editing userpages. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 13:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the catch, however I like my signature and since only a very small subsection of users will be ubable to display it I think I will keep using it. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 13:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
No worries, the hyperlinks still work, which is all that is mandated by policy. I'm not sure about the percentages, is depends on the specific unicode characters you picked, and whether they are backported via OS updates to older operating systems and smartphones. I don't think there is a website which gives a good indication of what percentage of *live* devices would fail to be able to see a particular character-glyph, if you know of such a place I'd be interested. In any case, my suggestion was to switch from using unicode-character-codepoints that (sometimes) displays the love-letter-wingding, to instead using an imagefile which would (always) display the love-letter-icon. But I consider it a minor point, so if you are not interested in messing with it, that is fine by moi 47.222.203.135 (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
I would have preferred to use an image, but that is sadly not allowed per WP:SIGNATURE. I'm not under the illusion that the clause would be enforced, but it would make the length of the signature unwieldy. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 20:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Whoa, my mistake. I was fairly positive that I had seen actual usernames with embedded images... maybe it was just fancy CSS, or somebody not yet caught by the sig-police  :-)
So it sounds like you are doing the proper thing, or at least, the best thing that wikipedia policy permits. Carry on, as you were, don't mind me 47.222.203.135 (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

fake news redirect

Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Did you intend to have fake news be a redirect to hoax and not to fake news (disambiguation)? I would argue that the term is ambiguous, usually it is somebody referring to a fake-news-story, but only some of those are hoaxes (as opposed to propaganda), and other times people use it as shorthand for fake-news-site aka the Onion is often called 'fake news' because it is a website that contains fake-news-stories. Change is here,[6] which I found serendipitously when explaining the page-structure to 213.47 on usertalk. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

47.222.203.135 — A hoax may ultimately have a political goal, that does not make it less of a hoax. Hoaxes may also have the goal of selling more copies of a newspaper (see examples from The New York Sun), or to increase clicks. With no clear demarcation of fake news/hoax they are entirely synonymous. We can not assume that just because something seems novel that it really is new. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 20:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
As an aside, the template:U thing only works for people with usernames, so you can just call me 47.222 or somesuch if you like. I agree with you that a hoax is in fact just a hoax, regardless of what transmission-vector is used to deploy it. But there are plenty of sources (not just the potus-elect) which call specific things 'fake news' that are NOT in fact hoaxes; see e.g. this diff where I link to some arsTechnica stuff.[7] I also don't think that something which is written as covert propaganda, can be properly called a hoax, because a hoax is a particular word that indicates/implies a particular intent. If you still think I'm wrong, we can discuss somewhere that somebody else can give input, such as Talk:Fake news website since we just came from there, or I guess at Talk:Hoax if you would prefer. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 21:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
OK,please submit a fresh UTRS appeal,with your IP address and ideally a copy of the block notice
Update, in looking again at hoax, I see that you are expanding hoax to include a summarization of fake news website, which will probably fix up most of my concerns. Please make sure to distinguish between 'fake news story' which can be originated as clickbait/propaganda/urbanLegend/similar, and the distinct 'fake news site' which is almost invariably clickbait. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Feel free to fix those things yourself too, I will give it a more thorough run in two days time. I have a very hectic day ahead of my tomorrow. Best, Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 21:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I have changed the redirect to be fake news pointing at Hoax#fake_news, and have expanded the Hoax#History section slightly. I am going to leave the contents of the key new subsection alone (hoax#fake_news) for the present, because frankly I would like to see how you tackle it. I would suggest not using 70news as the example-picture, because as I understand it the author of that site was sincere in their misinformation, whereas by contrast RealTrueNews is clearly a hoax website (including eventually revealing the hoax). Please let me know if you want anything, or would like some assistance in whatever way 47.222.203.135 (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

MEDRS/Citing sources/Books

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Carl -- note that WP:MEDBOOK in this section does not direct to the intended destination. Best. --Zefr (talk) 02:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for spotting that Zefr — I've fixed the link. We have too many old deprecated pages. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 11:42, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

NS

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

In Sweden you do not us NS? Or D5NS? what about in kids? What about when treating DKA? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Doc James Both are available, but NS is far more common than D5NS. In DKA NS is of course used. When I made that change at LR I meant that AR is used almost exclusively in place of LR, not that it is used exclusively. However page 3 of the guideline I referenced also says that AR is the go-to cristalloid in Scandinavia rather than NS which is pretty much only used in specific cases (it mentions that NS is far more common in the "anglosphere"). For children a 1% glucose solution is used across Europe [8]. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 16:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
To clarify in DKA first hour 1l NS, thereafter AR for at least 6 hours. Potassium is given independently and dose corrected after S-Potassium. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 16:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CFCF/Archive_23&oldid=785107470"