User talk:CFCF/Archive 29
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:CFCF. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 25 | ← | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | → | Archive 34 |
The Signpost: 9 June 2017
- From the editors: Signpost status: On reserve power, help wanted!
- News and notes: Global Elections
- Arbitration report: Cases closed in the Pacific and with Magioladitis
- Featured content: Three months in the land of the featured
- In the media: Did Wikipedia just assume Garfield's gender?
- Recent research: Wikipedia bot wars capture the imagination of the popular press
- Technology report: Tech news catch-up
- Traffic report: Film on Top: Sampling the weekly top 10
This Month in GLAM: May 2017
| ||||||
Closing the Discussion of Whether or Not Breitbart Should Be Described as Far-Right
Hello, the bottom of the discussion block says "Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page." Where is that page? Técnico (talk) 03:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Or, would you please re-open the discussion? Some editors seem to think that all websites right-of-center are far-right. Técnico (talk) 04:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
- Técnico, this has been discussed and settled. See the archives. RS describe it as far-right. Yes, not all right-wing websites are "far-right", but Breitbart does happen to be extremely far-right (or very conservative), same difference. It's much further right than Fox News. Check out this source. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
- Carl Fredrik, why are you marginalizing Wikipedia? You complained on my talk page about wasting time. Wikipedia is wasting time of those searching for Breitbart and then encountering the Wikipedia article's left-wing echo chamber. Therefore, to help to dissuade others from trying to correct the article's obvious mistake, please allow at least a summary of the "rehashed" argument to be placed on the article's talk page. For example,
- Why the Adjective Far-Right Is Applied to Breitbart
- 1. Some left-leaning news outlets called Breitbart "far-right" in some of their coverage.
- 2. Some left-leaning news outlets and others called Breitbart "conservative"
- 3. Wikipedia held some kind of an informal survey
- 4. The survey said to use the adjective far-right.
- 5. All further discussion has been subsequently shutdown.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
- I'm frankly not happy with the wording either. I would prefer right-wing extremist. However, since this is very unlikely to go through I choose not to waste time. Please refrain from doing so yourself as well or someone is bound to report you to WP:AN/I for WP:DISRUPTION & WP:HARASSMENT. Carl Fredrik talk 06:32, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
- Please cease your overzealous closings (Cf. WP:OZD) of discussions on talk pages. You posted this on my talk page, "If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page", when I was simply raising a new perspective. Técnico (talk) 00:26, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- No, you were reiterating an old perspective. Please do not WP:HARASS me. Carl Fredrik talk 06:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- I apologize if I was reiterating an old perspective. I did not see in the archives where anyone else listed how Wikipedia characterizes some other news outlets. If it is easy for you to do, would you please provide me a link to that already presented list? Técnico (talk) 03:05, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- No, you were reiterating an old perspective. Please do not WP:HARASS me. Carl Fredrik talk 06:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- Please cease your overzealous closings (Cf. WP:OZD) of discussions on talk pages. You posted this on my talk page, "If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page", when I was simply raising a new perspective. Técnico (talk) 00:26, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- I'm frankly not happy with the wording either. I would prefer right-wing extremist. However, since this is very unlikely to go through I choose not to waste time. Please refrain from doing so yourself as well or someone is bound to report you to WP:AN/I for WP:DISRUPTION & WP:HARASSMENT. Carl Fredrik talk 06:32, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Atón continued to improve the template according to received opposition feedback. In case you would like to reevaluate your vote, MEDRS was also recently added. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate - 18:26, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Books and Bytes - Issue 22
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 22, April-May 2017
- New and expanded research accounts
- Global branches update
- Spotlight: OCLC Partnership
- Bytes in brief
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
June 2017
Your recent editing history at Chronic Lyme disease shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 05:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Jargon lede
Template:Jargon lede has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:41, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The Signpost: 23 June 2017
- News and notes: Departments reorganized at Wikimedia Foundation, and a month without new RfAs (so far)
- In the media: Kalanick's nipples; Episode #138 of Drama on the Hill
- Op-ed: Facto Post: a fresh take
- Featured content: Will there ever be a break? The slew of featured content continues
- Traffic report: Wonder Woman beats Batman, The Mummy, Darth Vader and the Earth
- Technology report: Improved search, and WMF data scientist tells all
You should be very careful about making "bold" edits to template-protected pages as you did here because normal editors cannot revert them, so the usual WP:BRD process cannot be followed. In this case you should have self-reverted as soon as opposition was expressed, and certainly when you were explicitly asked to do so. Failure to do so can be seen as an abuse of the template-editor user right, and reflects negatively on the user group as a whole. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:24, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- I was aware of discussion, which at first strongly supported the change, with only scant opposition. Seems more opposition crawled out of the woodwork after I had stopped looking, and had I been better informed of it I would have self-reverted. Looking now I see it as consensus favoring the change — however, I do not have the time to run a full RfC to actually implement it, since it now seems we need one. Originally I saw the edit as very uncontroversial as it is in effect the way the template is overwhelmingly used (due to its name). Carl Fredrik talk 08:31, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- It's always difficult to know whether something will prove controversial, but maintenance template wording is probably an area to exercise extreme caution. Suggest proposing the change on the talk page, and then if there is no opposition within a week you should be safe to make the change. When I said "explicitly asked" I was referring to this ping which should have given you a notification. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:52, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
'also'
It's fine that you took out 'also' in Breitbart, but in no way does that constitute a 'weasel' word, and in fact goes against its definition. I was using it as a transition word anyway. But, again, I don't mind that you took it out, but I'd rather not be accused of policy violations I did not in fact commit. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐁT₳LKᐃ 15:06, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not specifically accusing you of a policy violation, just informing everyone involved that they should be aware of it — and to keep it in mind when commenting. WP:FALSEBALANCE is extraordinarily important, especially when we have editors who claim the NYT is far-left (as you can see in the archives, and probably still on the main talk page). Carl Fredrik talk 15:08, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Breitbart RfC
Hi Carl. I can see what you were trying to do with the RfC, but it didn't work since the {{rfc}} tag isn't designed to be added to an existing discussion. You can see it's rather messed up. You need to start a new discussion and add the tag right at the outset. Be sure to present the issue neutrally (per WP:RFC). (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:10, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
It is very often added in discussions. This is more than certainly early enough. Carl Fredrik talk 20:12, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
The source says so right there in the first paragraph: "...Planned Parenthood on Thursday gave congressional leaders and a committee that is investigating allegations of criminality at its clinics an analysis it commissioned...". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.45.62.153 (talk) 14:09, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Your Disruptive RFC tag on Breitbart - far right consensus
Obviously I don't agree and I think you have misused tagging my RFC. There must be away I can ask for that to be reviewed by someone independant. If you could let me know how I could do that would be great. Thanks --Quadrow (talk) 20:54, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- No, you can't exhaust everyone who has ever been touched that page by calling them involved. That strategy ain't biting. We're not running a third RfC on the exact same thing, especially when it's based off a technicality in a closing statement. Carl Fredrik talk 20:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- I don't really understand the point you are trying to make here. Nevertheless, it's not a technicality, it's a flaw in the original RFC. My question to you is that I think you are incorrect to do what you did and I would like to refer it. I'm asking you to show me how to do that. Thanks--Quadrow (talk) 21:12, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
quality of life
Hi, you indicated adding a link to the global social change research project on to the quality of life page is promotional or advertising. Could you please tell me exactly why that might be? The project has research and a report about quality of life, that seems fairly objective to me, as it uses data from sources like the UN or World Bank. Thanks Gsoctravel23 (talk) 00:13, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Merge of Template:Infobox dot-com company
Hey CFCF, can you point me to where the discussion reached consensus on merging {{Infobox dot-com company}} into {{Infobox website}}? I think {{Infobox company}} would be a much better target for any merge. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- UnitedStatesian — The issue was that Infobox dot-com company was used for pages that nearly exclusively covered single websites. Any articles about companies should legitimately have the more up-to-date and fully featured {{Infobox company}}. No real merge was needed as Infobox company includes all the functionality of the previous template and more. Hope this answers your question.
- P.S. If any functionality is missing feel free to inform me about it and we can see about adding it. So far no reports of lost functionality. Carl Fredrik talk 15:47, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- So what you're saying is: there was no discussion. And I disagree with your "almost exclusively" characterization: Amazon.com and MercadoLibre are just two of the many, many companies that use {{Infobox dot-com company}}. Can you please revert your redirection of the template so we can move to the final stage of the WP:BRD process? Thanks! UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:36, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
- UnitedStatesian — There was discussion, I will find it for you, but the functionality of both templates is exactly the same, so there is nothing at all to be gained by restoring an exact copy under another name. Carl Fredrik talk 10:01, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- So what you're saying is: there was no discussion. And I disagree with your "almost exclusively" characterization: Amazon.com and MercadoLibre are just two of the many, many companies that use {{Infobox dot-com company}}. Can you please revert your redirection of the template so we can move to the final stage of the WP:BRD process? Thanks! UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:36, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: June 2017
| ||||||
The Signpost: 15 July 2017
- News and notes: French chapter woes, new affiliates and more WMF team changes
- Featured content: Spectacular animals, Pine Trees screens, and more
- In the media: Concern about access and fairness, Foundation expenditures, and relationship to real-world politics and commerce
- Recent research: The chilling effect of surveillance on Wikipedia readers
- Gallery: A mix of patterns
- Humour: The Infobox Game
- Traffic report: Film, television and Internet phenomena reign with some room left over for America's birthday
- Technology report: New features in development; more breaking changes for scripts
- Wikicup: 2017 WikiCup round 3 wrap-up
Code
I think this is what you are looking for:
*[http://www.cochrane.org/search/site/{{urlencode:{{PAGENAME}}}}?f%5B0%5D=bundle%3Areview Cochrane Reviews]
I am concerned that others edit med templates without consensus but I get scolded and reverted. I would like to collaborate with you on a Women's Health search template but don't want to bother if I keep getting stone-walled. Best Regards, Bfpage (talk) 00:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC) and Barbara (WVS)
The Signpost: 5 August 2017
- Recent research: Wikipedia can increase local tourism by +9%; predicting article quality with deep learning; recent behavior predicts quality
- WikiProject report: Comic relief
- In the media: Wikipedia used to judge death penalty, arms smuggling, Indonesian governance, and HOTTEST celebrity
- Traffic report: Swedish countess tops the list
- Featured content: Everywhere in the lead
- Technology report: Introducing TechCom
- Humour: WWASOHs and ETCSSs
This Month in GLAM: July 2017
| ||||||
Data
Hi Carl, I think you mentioned that you may be able to give me some tips on how to analyze data to see how many links are presently in Wikipedia to Cochrane Reviews. I would greatly appreciate some assistance with this task! Are you free tomorrow (Saturday) to meet? Sorry to leave a message here, I have no other way to contact you! Thanks, JenOttawa (talk) 03:18, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Your comment at User talk:130.76.24.13
Hi CFCF: Regarding your comment (diff), "Northamerica1000 — 24 hours!? For that amount of disruption?"
, blocks are supposed to be preventative, to prevent vandalism and disruptive editing from occurring. They are not meant to be punitive. The vandalizing edits all occurred in a short amount of time on 17 August 2017 in rapid succession. As such, a 24-hour block will likely suffice to prevent more vandalism; after being blocked for 24 hours, many ip vandals don't return after the block is lifted. North America1000 23:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- I just have a very hard time believing that someone who would editwar in that manner is likely to contribute positively in the future. I didn't mean a longer block should by punitive, just that it would be in order simply to prevent more damage, but we will see after the block wares off. Carl Fredrik talk 23:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- If the vandalism continues after the block, the block duration can be increased. Check out Wikipedia:Blocking policy § Purpose and goals for more information. North America1000 23:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Michael Quinn Sullivan AfD
Hello. I am not trying to be difficult. However, I am trying to find the paid editor who created the Michael Quinn Sullivan article per our discussion at the related AfD [1]. The article seems to have been created by an anonymous IP and I don't see any blocked for paid editing on that talk page or User page. I randomly tried other editors in the edit history and have not found the "culprit". To which editor are you referring? Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:16, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- Steve Quinn — While it was created by an IP, most text was added by User:Billy Hathorn & User:Champaign Supernova, both of them blocked for paid editing and sockpuppeting. This makes me suspicious of the IPs as well. Carl Fredrik talk 08:39, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info. This is what I was thinking you meant. I just didn't know who. Also, I can understand suspecting the Anonymous IP. That makes sense. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Books and Bytes - Issue 23
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 23, June-July 2017
- Library card
- User Group update
- Global branches update
- Spotlight: Combating misinformation, fake news, and censorship
- Bytes in brief
Chinese, Arabic and Yoruba versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:03, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox alternative intervention
Template:Infobox alternative intervention has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox medical intervention. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
The Signpost: 6 September 2017
- From the editors: What happened at Wikimania?
- News and notes: Basselpedia; WMF Board of Trustees appointments
- Featured content: Warfighters and their tools or trees and butterflies
- Traffic report: A fortnight of conflicts
- Special report: Biomedical content, and some thoughts on its future
- Recent research: Discussion summarization; Twitter bots tracking government edits; extracting trivia from Wikipedia
- WikiProject report: WikiProject YouTube
- Technology report: Latest tech news
- Wikicup: 2017 WikiCup round 4 wrap-up
- Humour: Bots
This Month in GLAM: August 2017
| ||||||
Orphaned non-free image File:Propublica logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Propublica logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:02, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
The Signpost: 25 September 2017
- News and notes: Chapter updates; ACTRIAL
- Humour: Chickenz
- Recent research: Wikipedia articles vs. concepts; Wikipedia usage in Europe
- Technology report: Flow restarted; Wikidata connection notifications
- Gallery: Chicken mania
- Traffic report: Fights and frights
- Featured content: Flying high
Nomination for deletion of Template:MTprogress
Template:MTprogress has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:39, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
 | |
| 11 years of service today for health care | |
|---|---|
| ... you were recipient no. 1483 of Precious, a prize of QAI! |
This Month in GLAM: September 2017
| ||||||
Help design a new feature to stop harassing emails
Hi there,
The Anti-Harassment Tools team plans to start develop of a new feature to allow users to restrict emails from new accounts. This feature will allow an individual user to stop harassing emails from coming through the Special:EmailUser system from abusive sockpuppeting accounts.
We’re inviting you to join the discussion because you voted or commented in the 2016 Community Wishlist discussion or IdeaLab discussion about letting users restrict who can send them email.
You can leave comments on this discussion page or send an email to the Anti-Harassment Tools team.
It is important to hear from a broad range of people who are interested in the design of the tool, so we hope you join the discussion.
For the Anti-Harassment Tools team SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.
Nomination for deletion of Template:Jargon lede
Template:Jargon lede has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Books and Bytes - Issue 24
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 24, August-September 2017
- User Group update
- Global branches update
- Star Coordinator Award - last quarter's star coordinator: User:Csisc
- Wikimania Birds of a Feather session roundup
- Spotlight: Wiki Loves Archives
- Bytes in brief
Arabic, Kiswahili and Yoruba versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
The Signpost: 23 October 2017
- News and notes: Money! WMF fundraising, Wikimedia strategy, WMF new office!
- Featured content: Don, Marcel, Emily, Jessica and other notables
- Humour: Guys named Ralph
- In the media: Facebook and poetry
- Special report: Working with GLAMs in the UK
- Traffic report: Death, disaster, and entertainment
Village Pump Suicide closure
Per Closing discussions#Challenging a closing, the proper first step is to seek an aggreable resolution with the closer.
Regarding you closure[2] of VPP#Change_suicide_references_to_remove_criminal_allusion:
- Only in death has revert-contested[3] your closure.
- Flyer22 Reborn called the close inappropriate.[4]
- Jayron32 has revert-contested[5] your closure.
- I am here asking you to withdraw/acknowledge_withdrawal of your closure.
Problems with the close:
- It was inappropriate to close it without evaluating consensus.
- The Pump discussion was open for 27 days. There was no apparent good-cause to cut-short the standard 30 days, other than potentially to apply a SNOW.
- Your closure clearly cut-short imminent evaluation of consensus by someone else, as the standard 30 days was about to expire.
- The Pump discussion was open nearly a month before the discussion you attempted to redirected to. This is clear forum shopping.
- You are clearly not impartial/uninvolved. You began arguing the issue yourself[6] on the MOS page shortly prior to placing your closure.
- You clearly disagreed with the virtually unanimous consensus, and your closure directed everyone to see your own "arguments for and against this proposal" at another venue. A close review would go down like a ton of bricks. Alsee (talk) 19:14, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
- I have made my concerns clear at User talk:Only in death — and do not agree at all that this was inappropriate. The voting began very recently as a reaction to the discussion on WT:MOS — and it is that first vote which is WP:FORUMSHOPPING, not anything which I've done.
- This is also what precisely is disruptive — with arguments laid out on WP:MOS, but with pretty much negligible discussion on WP:VP — we're doing no one any favors by keeping both open, or even pretending that 10 votes with little substance constitute consensus in the face of another in-depth discussion which actually has more participants already.
- If you truly disagree that it was not WP:FORUMSHOPPING to start a vote at WP:VP instead of where one existed at WT:MOS — then go ahead and revert me, but I wont. I reverted Only in death because I found him to be incorrect in assuming I did this to get a leg up in the discussion — I don't think it really matters.
- Carl Fredrik talk 20:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
- Ping Alsee. Carl Fredrik talk 20:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
- I have not been following the discussion closely. Perhaps you could explain to me how a 5 October 2017 Pump discussion[7] was "started in response to" a 30 October 2017 MOS discussion?[8] As a science-geek, I find the potential physics-implementations for time travel to be fascinating :)
- Even if accurate, it was still inappropriate to preform an involved-close on a Pump discussion that had been running nearly a month, on discussion of encyclopedia-wide applicability of the proposed language change. Alsee (talk) 22:12, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
- The voting was started today. Carl Fredrik talk 22:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
- The voting in the VPP discussion started October 8. No matter what part of earth you live in, that meets no reasonable definition of "Today". --Jayron32 10:38, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- There is a timestamp on that section saying November 1, but this was for "an expansion". I was in the wrong, but only in assuming that timestamps correspond to when the comment was written. Carl Fredrik talk 15:18, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- Ok, it was a mistake and it's resolved. However I'd like to (gently) clarify where things went wrong. The weird revised date was a contributing factor, but that wasn't really where things went wrong. The mistake was grabbing a date from the middle of the discussion. You appear(?) to have jumped to the first bolded response. If you had started from the top, the question as posted 5 October. And on 5 October there were multiple supporting and opposing responses. None of them are bolded, but bolding is an irrelevant convenience. In not-a-vote discussions, non-bolded debate is just as valid as bolded !votes. Alsee (talk) 00:37, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
- There is a timestamp on that section saying November 1, but this was for "an expansion". I was in the wrong, but only in assuming that timestamps correspond to when the comment was written. Carl Fredrik talk 15:18, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- The voting in the VPP discussion started October 8. No matter what part of earth you live in, that meets no reasonable definition of "Today". --Jayron32 10:38, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- The voting was started today. Carl Fredrik talk 22:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
- Ping Alsee. Carl Fredrik talk 20:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: October 2017
| ||||||
The Signpost: 24 November 2017
- News and notes: Cons, cons, cons
- Arbitration report: Administrator desysoped; How to deal with crosswiki issues; Mister Wiki case likely
- Technology report: Searching and surveying
- Interview: A featured article centurion
- WikiProject report: Recommendations for WikiProjects
- In the media: Open knowledge platform as a media institution
- Traffic report: Strange and inappropriate
- Featured content: We will remember them
- Recent research: Who wrote this? New dataset on the provenance of Wikipedia text
cf
I'm going to be editing Fat embolism (Ive placed some refs on the article/talk) any advice is appreciated thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:25, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, CFCF. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: November 2017
| ||||||
Help for improvement this article. Thank you!Ngochue456 (talk) 02:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- I haven't edited that... Carl Fredrik talk 08:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Books and Bytes - Issue 25
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 25, October – November 2017
- OAWiki & #1Lib1Ref
- User Group update
- Global branches update
- Spotlight: Research libraries and Wikimedia
- Bytes in brief
Arabic, Korean and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
The Signpost: 18 December 2017
- Special report: Women in Red World Contest wrap-up
- Featured content: Featured content to finish 2017
- In the media: Stolen seagulls, public domain primates and more
- Arbitration report: Last case of 2017: Mister Wiki editors
- Gallery: Wiki loving
- Recent research: French medical articles have "high rate of veracity"
- Technology report: Your wish lists and more Wikimedia tech
- Traffic report: Notable heroes and bad guys
Merry Xmas
|
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2018! |
|
Hello CFCF, 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 a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2018. Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
Invitation
Hello CFCF. A reminder about Under-representation of science and women in Africa: Wikimania 2018 an opportunity to bridge the gap. Your contribution is appreciated. Ear-phone (talk) 15:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: December 2017
| ||||||
Hi, I contact you because of the picture which yu made and we use on Polish wikipedia. It seems there is a mistake with Drosophila. Where did you get these numbers of chromosomes from? As far as all sources say, Drosophila melanogaster has 3 pairs of autosomes (so, 6 autosomes in total in diploid), and female is 6 + XX, and male is 6 + XY. As sex is determined by ratio of A:X, animal of genotype 9 + XXX is also female, and 6 + X0 is male (but sterile one). Wireonek (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
The Signpost: 16 January 2018
- News and notes: Communication is key
- In the media: The Paris Review, British Crown and British Media
- Featured content: History, gaming and multifarious topics
- Interview: Interview with Ser Amantio di Nicolao, the top contributor to English Wikipedia by edit count
- Technology report: Dedicated Wikidata database servers
- Arbitration report: Mister Wiki is first arbitration committee decision of 2018
- Traffic report: The best and worst of 2017
Books and Bytes - Issue 26
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 26, December – January 2018
- #1Lib1Ref
- User Group update
- Global branches update
- Spotlight: What can we glean from OCLC’s experience with library staff learning Wikipedia?
- Bytes in brief
Arabic and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Classes in world of warcraft listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Classes in world of warcraft. Since you had some involvement with the Classes in world of warcraft redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:08, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
The Signpost: 5 February 2018
- Featured content: Wars, sieges, disasters and everything black possible
- Traffic report: TV, death, sports, and doodles
- Special report: Cochrane–Wikipedia Initiative
- Arbitration report: New cases requested for inter-editor hostility and other collaboration issues
- In the media: Solving crime; editing out violence allegations
- Humour: You really are in Wonderland
This Month in GLAM: January 2018
| ||||||
The Signpost: 20 February 2018
- News and notes: The future is Swedish with a lack of administrators
- Recent research: Politically diverse editors write better articles; Reddit and Stack Overflow benefit from Wikipedia but don't give back
- Arbitration report: Arbitration committee prepares to examine two new cases
- Traffic report: Addicted to sports and pain
- Featured content: Entertainment, sports and history
- Technology report: Paragraph-based edit conflict screen; broken thanks
This Month in GLAM: February 2018
| ||||||
Excellent work
This series of edits has significantly improved readability and accuracy. Nice work! I happen to be an American with a Danish wife, and have lived in Denmark for over two decades. We are both educated as Physician assistants in the USA, but became Physical Therapists in Denmark and have had our careers there. Keep up the good work. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:26, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Please stop
Carl, please stop edit warring to restore the videos. They don't comply with WP:V or WP:MEDRS. The company could have released the scripts with inline citations, but it has chosen not to, so we're left with unsourced material, and in a few cases editors have found errors. The whole point of WP:V is that readers are able to check the sources for themselves. SarahSV (talk) 21:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- I will restore videos that are removed in absence of any discussion regarding errors. I would suggest no actions regarding this issue until the RFC has passed, as currently any attempt to point out errors may be motivated by other reasons than wanting to improve Wikipedia, such as WP:GAMING. Carl Fredrik talk 21:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- You wrote at the RfC: "a single person trying to overwhelm all other posters is not substitute for discussion". In that spirit, there is no need to post under every response you disagree with. See WP:BLUDGEON. SarahSV (talk) 22:05, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions about User:CFCF. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
- You wrote at the RfC: "a single person trying to overwhelm all other posters is not substitute for discussion". In that spirit, there is no need to post under every response you disagree with. See WP:BLUDGEON. SarahSV (talk) 22:05, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
| Archive 25 | ← | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | → | Archive 34 |
General sanctions at Coronavirus disease 2019
Hi CFCF, I'm currently adding this message to a few user talk pages. You are likely already aware, but I'll formally place this notice here too.
Please carefully read this information:
A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
The specific details of these sanctions are described here.