This is an archive of past discussions with 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.
{{Mesh2}} don't redirect correctly. A message is returned:
Internal Server Error
The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request.
Please contact the server administrator, [email protected] and inform them of the time the error occurred, and anything you might have done that may have caused the error.
Please stop reverting my edit on CETA as the source only indicated the protest from some EU countries, and no protests from the Canadian side. I would like to avoid an edit war with people over problems like this. Thanks. C-GAUN (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
C-GAUN — I've reverted once, so you must have me mixed up with someone else. Normally when reverted multiple times you need to take it up on talk. There are sources for the statement, and they exist in the article, so just cut it out. Carl Fredrik 💌📧20:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Look Carl, I just said I don't want an edit war so I won't revert your edit, but you do NOT have any source to justify your revision. The source only said that you EUropeans were protesting and said nothing on the Canadians. Let's be reasonable over this. I really hate to fight over issues like this. C-GAUN (talk) 20:21, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
The best way to avoid an edit-war is not to edit-war and say you want to avoid it, but rather to actually discuss controversial changes — especially when they are long-standing within an article and supported by sources. Carl Fredrik 💌📧20:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Please don't be so arrogant and read the Reuters article again. The title clearly stated "Tens of thousands protest in Europe against Atlantic free trade deals" and the body mentioned NO CANADIAN PROTESTS whatsoever. You need to find some other reliable sources to justify your position. I've also left a description on the talk page of the article. C-GAUN (talk) 20:28, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
So can we at least agree that the sentence should be amended? I have clearly indicated in the edit summary that you need to read the source again but it looked like you ignored it as well. C-GAUN (talk) 20:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
I've fixed it, but it is incorrect to say there have been no Canadian protests. They have however been marginal (facebook-groups and flickr photos abound), but no major news-mentions. So you're right, it may not be WP:DUE to mention them. Carl Fredrik 💌📧20:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I see you made some changes to the article on the rectum, including the removal of a template I had placed there suggesting that the article needed improving beyond its human-centric focus. While you did mention "humans and other animals" in the revised text, no substantive changes appear to have been made to the article and it looks to me like it remains heavily (really, almost entirely) focused on the human rectum. If you want to remove the tag, that's fine— it would be great if you also changed the article to materially address the issues raised by the tag. If you do not perform that kind of improvement, then perhaps it is best to let the tag remain so that others can be aware of the issue and can opt to address it later. Removing the tag without addressing the problem the tag was placed to encourage editors to fix seems less helpful. Alternatively, of course, we could move this article to Human rectum and create a new article at Rectum that does not focus so heavily on the human version. Thoughts? KDS4444 (talk) 12:15, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Changes this week
You will be able to show references from <references /> tags in more than one column on your wiki. This is the list of footnotes for the sources in the article. How many columns you see will depend on how big your screen is. On some wikis, some templates already do this. Templates that use <references /> tags will need to be updated, and then later the change can happen for all reference lists. [1][2]
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 14 March. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 15 March. It will be on all wikis from 16 March (calendar).
Meetings
You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 14 March at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Future changes
Some old web browsers will not be able to use JavaScript on Wikimedia wikis in the future. If you have an old web browser on your computer you can upgrade to a newer version. [3]
CSS in templates will be stored in a separate page in the future. [4][5]
Converted undo/restore interface to use OOUI. You can test it here (phab:T134643).
Fixed an other rounding issue on geo coordinates (phab:T158772).
Added thumbnail images to the Wikimedia Commons suggester (phab:T160319).
Continued working on introducing Lexeme entity type.
Finishing federation prototype.
We are going to change all snak, reference, and qualifier hashes with the planned DataModel 7.0 release. If you are a tool developer, make sure you do not persist hashes, and never use them to request edits to entities. Statement IDs are safe (phab:T157965).
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
The Save page button now says Publish page or Publish changes on the Wikimedia wikis except for Wikipedias and Wikinewses. This change will come to Wikipedias later. The point is to make it more clear that the edit will change the page immediately. Publish page is when you save a new page and Publish changes when you edit an existing page. [6]
You can see monthly page views when you click on Page information in the sidebar. Developers can also get monthly page views through the API. [8]
The Linter extension is now on smaller Wikimedia wikis. It helps editors find some wikitext errors so they can be fixed. It will come to other Wikimedia wikis later. The extension will be able to find more errors later. [9]
The MediaWiki-Vagrant portable development environment has been updated to use Debian Jessie. This means local development and testing will be more like on the majority of Wikimedia production servers. [10]
Problems
On 15 March some interwiki links to other languages were not correctly sorted. This has been fixed. If you still see pages where the interwiki links are not sorted as they should be, they should be fixed automatically with time or you can edit the page and save it without changing anything. If this doesn't work, please report it. [11]
Changes this week
When you edit with the visual editor, you will be able to switch the direction you write in from right-to-left to left-to-right as you are editing. This is especially important for editors who edit in languages that write from right to left. You can do this with a tool in the editing menu. You can also use the keyboard shortcut Ctrl+Shift+X on PCs or Cmd+Shift+X on Macs. [12]
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 21 March. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 22 March. It will be on all wikis from 23 March (calendar).
Meetings
You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 21 March at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Hello. In March 2017 you changed the {{WikiProject Medicine}} from using one version Rod of Asclepius to the one from the WHO flag. The WHO flag is in the public domain, but public domain content can still be trademarked and in this case the logo is. I think that means that using this graphic is a no-go. Do you agree, or is there more to say?
1. used 2007-2017
2. made by a Wikimedia contributor?
3. WHO trademark
How do you feel about that other blue snake? I think you posted it around starting in late 2016. That one suits me as a good update because it is more identifiable and abstract than the sketched-looking current snake. Does it work for you? Or should we look for something else? Or is the original snake fine? Blue Rasberry (talk)20:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
As I understand the following:
The emblem consists of the United Nations symbol surmounted by a staff with a snake coiling round it.
Meaning the snake itself is not trademarked. I actually do like the 2nd logo better, but it is a bad choice on account of not being CC-0/PD because it means we have to link to the commons description. This may be confusing to newer users/readers/editors — which is why I chose to change it. There are a few other alternative we could use, let me see what I can find. Carl Fredriktalk16:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Think about it. Pulling a copyrightable part of the artwork out of the original trademark to make a derivative work, especially for use as brand identification in a competing program, seems to me like a potentially troublesome reuse. If brought to further community comment then I am not sure it would fly. Or - I could be mistaken.
I think WP:Med is at a point where it could be worthwhile to commission more art, if it is merited. Wikimedia NYC is probably going to put some logo commissioning in its next budget and if medicine wants its own logo or logos then that could come under that. Logos are not so expensive anyway - $5-50 is possible. Blue Rasberry (talk)18:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks!
Dear Carl, I just wanted to say how much I appreciated the opportunity to be subjected to weeks of character attacks and motive-questioning based on your own extreme political views, ignorance about WP policy, poor English reading comprehension, and general lack of maturity. It is regrettable that your !vote didn't end up counting for anything, but that is a risk you run when supporting deeply improper edits.
I look forward to being abused by you again in the future! Wet kisses, Factchecker.
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
When you edit with the visual editor, you can see a visual diff as well as a wikitext diff when you review your changes. [13]
Problems
Special:AllPages was disabled for two days due to some performance issues. It is back, but the filter for redirects is gone as the cause of the performance problem. It still needs to be fixed. [14][15]
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from March 28. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from March 29. It will be on all wikis from March 30 (calendar).
Hi, I'm just writing to note that I'm concerned about the way you've been editing the WP:MEDRS guideline.
It's quite clear that you're trying to make improvements to MEDRS. I have no doubt whatsoever that you're making a good-faith effort to make the guideline as clear and accessible to newer editors as possible, and that's a laudable goal.
But...based on the discussions I've seen on the guideline's talk page, there have been some pretty clear concerns expressed by a number of editors (myself included) that trying to condense the principles and heuristics underlying the use and evaluations of medical sources into bullet-point tables and red/green, go/no-go diagrams may be over-simplifying some of the ideas a bit too much. And the problem is that that the new editors these tables and diagrams are most intended to help are also the ones most likely to be tripped up by misunderstanding rules of thumb as hard-and-fast commandments. I'm not going to further rehash those discussions, as this isn't the place.
Unfortunately, what I've been seeing when other editors have expressed those concerns on the guideline talk page, when other editors have removed your diagrams from the guideline for discussion, is a tendency on your part to immediately reinsert the contested material without waiting for the discussion to reach a conclusion (or allow more than minimal participation). When you participate in the discussion, you tend to be very dismissive of what other people have to say. You've gotten involved in edit wars a couple of times in the last few months, and I'm afraid you're about to do it again this time around.
When you add something to a guideline without prior discussion, you shouldn't be surprised when someone else removes it and asks for a discussion to take place. There is definitely an obligation to engage with that discussion and reach a consensus before you re-add material to a core guideline. I hope that you will revert yourself at MEDRS and engage with the talk page discussion about your reliability-of-book-sources diagram. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
I think you're being rather unreasonable now TenofAllTrades — largely based on the fact that that specific image was in the article for over 8 months, and there really was no one else (you included) who stated anything about the image having issues. Carl Fredrik talk16:11, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
I didn't see it at the time (indeed, didn't see it until the discussion about it today), and I suspect I'm not alone. I did object, and discuss, as soon as I became aware of it. It was your choice not to open a discussion of your edits at the time that you made them (or better yet, before you made them).
A lot of experienced editors don't go back to regularly re-read the policies and guidelines that we cite and apply every day, precisely because we already familiar with their use and application. We trust that substantial changes will be discussed on the talk page, and that our fellow experienced editors will confine their changes to minor clarifications and wordsmithing. In the case of your diagram, it was buried in a pile of consecutive edits you made, most without any edit summary. If you want to make changes to a frequently-cited guideline, you should seek consensus on the talk page first (best) or describe and invite discussion of those changes – and welcome a revert pending establishment of a consensus – on the talk page (at a minimum). More important, if you often find that you don't realize that your edits constitute substantive changes to how MEDRS or other guidelines are interpreted, you definitely need to be looking for consensus before you edit. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:15, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
A warm welcome to our new intern, Lucas Werkmeister! You may now him for his work on queries as WikidataFacts. He will work in the team for the next months.
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
The Save page button now says Publish page or Publish changes on most Wikipedias. The point is to make it more clear that the edit will change the page immediately. Publish page is when you save a new page and Publish changes when you edit an existing page. [16]
The tracking category Category:Pages with template loops is now added when a template loop is found. A template loop is for example when a template tries to use a second template that uses the first template. [17]
English Wikipedia now has cookie blocks. It will come to more wikis in the future. This is an extension to the autoblock system so when a user is blocked, the next time they visit the wiki a cookie will be set. This means that even if the user switches accounts and to a new IP address the cookie will block them again. [18]
Problems
Wikidata descriptions, aliases and labels that used some characters could not be saved. This has now been fixed. [19]
Changes this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 4 April. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 5 April. It will be on all wikis from 6 April (calendar).
Meetings
You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 4 April at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.
There's now also a #100wikidays challenge on Wikidata, aptly named #100wikidatadays! It is a personal challenge in which a person very significantly improves (at least) one Wikidata items per day, for 100 days in a row. There was already a version of the challenge on various Wikipedias, on Commons and on Wikisource - now on Wikidata as well. Participate and make Wikidata shine!
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Some older web browsers will not be able to use JavaScript on Wikimedia wikis from this week. If you have an old web browser on your computer you can upgrade to a newer version. [22]
New filters for Recent changes will come to Wikidata and Persian, Russian, Turkish and French Wikipedia on 11 April. The schedule has been changed to fix the user intent prediction filters for some wikis. User intent prediction means the filter tries to make it easier for editors to determine if the edit was made in good faith or not. Other wikis will get it later. [23]
The list of special characters in the wikitext editor and the visual editor will now have a group of Canadian Aboriginal characters. [24]
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 11 April. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 12 April. It will be on all wikis from 13 April (calendar).
Meetings
You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 11 April at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Future changes
Because of a data centre test you will be able to read but not edit the wikis for 20 to 30 minutes on 19 April and 3 May. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time. You can read more about this.
RevisionSlider will change how you move between revisions. This will be available on the test wiki from 11 April. It will come to other wikis later if users like the change. You can test it and give feedback.
Hi CFCF... I was wondering if you knew of, or could acquire, some high-quality images relating to the physiology of CSF and related structures? In particular, the choroid plexus, ependyma, and the process by which CSF is created. A histology-related image like we have for glomerulus would, I think, greatly benefit the article. Hope you're well! --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Netherlands report: Netherlands and the World Exchange Platform; photohunt Egmond aan Zee; Iconographia Zoologica
Spain report: Wikipedia course at La Yutera Library
Sweden report: Art+Feminism 2017; Connected Open Heritage; Digikult; Art on Wikipedia; Writing about Gothenburg's history; Updating image description with new research results
UK report: Wicipop project in Wales; Wikimedia UK's impact report
This is an archive of past discussions with 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.
Indonesia report: Proposing collaboration with museums in Bali; First Wikisource training in the region
Netherlands report: Students write articles about Media artists, Public Domain Day 2020, Wiki Goes Caribbean, WikiFridays at Ihlia - Wikimedia Nederland in January & February 2020
Norway report: Wikipedia editing workshop with the Norwegian Network for Museums
