User talk:CFCF/Archive 29

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.

This Month in GLAM – Volume VII, Issue V, May 2017 Headlines Argentina report: #1lib1ref in Buenos Aires, Participation in WikiCite and the editing challenge of the month Australia and New Zealand report: State Library of Western Australia Belgium report: Wikipedia session for museums; education for library staff Brazil report: Articulating new volunteers Côte d'Ivoire report: Preparing a Wikimedia 2030 workshop with GLAM partners France report: Rennes Archives; Archives Nationales Germany report: Central Public Library of Düsseldorf Ireland report: Terry Pratchett workshop Italy report: Sacred art and videogames Macedonia report: From idea to award; ArchiWiki edit-a-thon Netherlands report: The Mind of the Universe; Photos of Syria; Wikipedian in Residence project Memory of the World Spain report: Releasement of images from National Museum of Ceramics and Decorative Arts Sweden report: Connected Open Heritage; Sounds of Changes UK report: Spreading Enlightenment USA report: Artworks Challenge, Women/Media Edit-a-thon, D.C. Protests caught on .jpg, and lots in Wikipedia + Libraries Wikidata report: WikiCite, new tools, and more WMF GLAM report: Documentation, Categorization and Reviewing what we know! Calendar: June's GLAM events Read this edition in full • Single-page To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

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)

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)

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 22, April-May 2017

• New and expanded research accounts
• Global branches update
• Spotlight: OCLC Partnership
• Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Hmm. Carl Fredrik ^talk 20:15, 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)

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)

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)

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)

This Month in GLAM – Volume VII, Issue VI, June 2017 Headlines Argentina report: Campaign #1lib1ref in Buenos Aires, new material donated and guidelines for cultural institutions Basque Country report: Idazlezainak: librarians as writers' curators Belgium report: GLAM seminar Sharing is Caring Bulgaria report: Bulgarian GLAM activists were awarded with the "Friends of the Archives" Award Côte d'Ivoire report: Strategy discussion with GLAM partners Czech Republic report: WikiCity Litovel Estonia report: Summer school about photographic collections France report: Conference for Archives of Gironde Germany report: "Wiki Loves Music" project features musical instruments from two museums, and more Italy report: Edit-a-thons & libraries Macedonia report: New collaboration of GLAM Macedonia user group with the City Library in Skopje Netherlands report: Workshop children's books, Sharing is Caring Brussels, short WiR period at Utrecht University Library & Preparations medieval image donation Russia report: WikiProjects of students of Petrozavodsk State University Spain report: Wikipedia and the Museum of Málaga Sweden report: Connected Open Heritage; Wiki Loves Earth; Water data on Wikidata UK report: Summer of data Ukraine report: Sharing images in print and digital USA report: June is bustin' out all over Wikidata report: Requesting your input; news from MySociety WMF GLAM report: Welcome; Documentation Update; Other updates Calendar: July's GLAM events Read this edition in full • Single-page To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

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)

This Month in GLAM – Volume VII, Issue VII, July 2017 Headlines France report: WikiTrain in Rennes Italy report: Edit-a-thon in Pieve Tesino UK report: Politician pin ups USA report: Dog days of summer Wikimania report: GLAM at Wikimania 2017 Wikidata report: Zotero for Wikidata; Changes to Constraint Handling WMF GLAM report: Edit-a-thons, Structured Commons and Wikimedia Blog Calendar: August's GLAM events Read this edition in full • Single-page To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

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)

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)

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)

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!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:03, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

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)

This Month in GLAM – Volume VII, Issue VIII, August 2017 Headlines Argentina report: New material on Wikimedia Commons Brazil report: Edit-a-thons to spread mathematics and neuroscience; Women of Culture and other activities Côte d'Ivoire report: Presenting about West African context at Wikimania 2017 Estonia report: First Art Exhibition in the Estonian Wikipedia is now opened France report: Images from Jean-Auguste Brutails Germany report: Collaboration with volunteers and how to "wikify" GLAM-institutions Italy report: Edit-a-thons & goals Macedonia report: WikiWine project; Two days of edit-a-thons Serbia report: Public Domain Photos Donation Sweden report: Connected Open Heritage; Tekniska museet template migration; Stockholm Pride week USA report: WikiMania & Wikiconference North America, Beer, Hip Hop Wikidata report: Meeting Europeana; Conference News WMF GLAM report: GLAM-Wiki team, Wikimania, and updates Calendar: September's GLAM events Read this edition in full • Single-page To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

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)

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)

A year ago ...

11 years of service today for health care
... you were recipient no. 1483 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM – Volume VII, Issue IX, September 2017 Headlines Argentina report: Edit-a-thon in the Parque de la Memoria and new materials in Commons Czech Republic report: 2017 Edit-a-thon in the Research Library in Olomouc France report: Heritage Wiki Days Germany report: Prepare Your data Ireland report: New Irish partnership Italy report: WikiDonne and Wikidata Macedonia report: Three months WiR at the City Library in Skopje accomplished successfully Netherlands report: UNESCO WiR in Middelburg and Amsterdam Spain report: Culture and Citizenship Switzerland report: Third Edition of the Swiss Open Cultural Data Hackathon Tunisia report: Wikipedian in Residence UK report: Wikidata in Parliament USA report: September Song Wikidata report: Number crunching WMF GLAM report: Running Edit-a-thons, Studying GLAM Uploads to Commons, Project Grants and more! Calendar: October's GLAM events Read this edition in full • Single-page To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

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.

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)

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!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

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)

This Month in GLAM – Volume VII, Issue X, October 2017 Headlines Australia and New Zealand report: Adding Australian women in research to Wikipedia Brazil report: Integrating Wikimedia projects into the Brazilian National Archives GLAM Bulgaria report: Botevgrad became the first wikitown in Bulgaria France report: Wiki Loves Monuments; Opérations Libres Germany report: GLAMorous activities in October Italy report: Experts training on GLAM projects Serbia report: Wikipedian in residence at Historical Archives of Subotica; Model of a grain of wheat exlusivly digitized for Wikimedia Commons; Cooperation of the Ministry of Culture and Information and Wikimedia Serbia - GLAM presentations and workshops for museums, archives and libraries Spain report: Women Writers Day Sweden report: Swedish Performing Arts Agency; Connected Open Heritage; Internetmuseum; More Working life museums UK report: Scotland's Libraries & Hidden Gems Ukraine report: Wikitraining for Librarians; Library Donation USA report: trick or treat Wikidata report: WikidataCon & Birthday WMF GLAM report: News about Structured Commons! Calendar: November's GLAM events Read this edition in full • Single-page To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

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)

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 – Volume VII, Issue XI, November 2017 Headlines Australia and New Zealand report: GLAM Peak digital collections workshops Brazil report: Can you hear this GLAM?; Glam activities at I IWSC and 3D reconstruction project Côte d'Ivoire report: Training 10 librarians, partnering with APSID-CI Czech Republic report: Edit-a-thon in Regional museum in Slaný 2017 Estonia report: Digital Humanities Conference held as Part of Estonian Presidency of Council of the EU France report: Edit-a-thons in Saint-Brieuc and Montpellier Germany report: A new archive building is born and more GLAM on Tour Stations Ireland report: Digital Preservation Community Workshop Macedonia report: Edit-a-thon related to WWII; Wiki Loves Food 2017 Netherlands report: Photographs of Africa & KB-Wiki partnership Serbia report: Two Wikipedians in residence and one edit-a-thon Spain report: Working with libraries Sweden report: Nordiska museet; Internetmuseum; Statens maritima museer; Nationalmuseum; Swedish Performing Arts Agency workshop Tunisia report: Upload Book UK report: Libraries gave us power Ukraine report: Volunteers cooperate with GLAMers USA report: remember November Special story: Out of This World! Wikidata report: Onwards and Upwards WMF GLAM report: Conferences, case studies, Structured Commons, #1lib1ref Calendar: December's GLAM events Read this edition in full • Single-page To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

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)

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!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

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. Happy editing, Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:45, 25 December 2017 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

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 – Volume VII, Issue XII, December 2017 Headlines France report: Rituels grecs; Wiki Loves Monuments 2017 Germany report: a good working key to GLAM collections Indonesia report: Collaboration with library in Yogyakarta Italy report: Activities in December Macedonia report: Winners of DARM Challenge 3 Netherlands report: Historical aerial photographs from the Ministry of Defense; Texts on Dutch philosophers released under free license; Wikipedia manual; Images from Erfgoedhuis Zuid-Holland Serbia report: Two Serbian museums welcomed their first Wikipedians in Residence Spain report: Wikipedia Club Sweden report: Inputs to the National Library Strategy; Statens maritima museer; Tekniska museet; Riksantikvarieämbetet Tunisia report: Upload Book Ukraine report: Promoting and Community events in Libraries USA report: Fire & Ice & Goats Wikidata report: Happy Q34812! WMF GLAM report: Share Case Studies and Feedback with WMF, #1lib1ref, Structured Commons Research, and Blog Highlights Calendar: January's GLAM events Read this edition in full • Single-page To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

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 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)

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)

This Month in GLAM – Volume VIII, Issue I, January 2018 Headlines Australia report: We came, we saw, we conquered! Basque Country report: Books, librarians, encounters and borrowed data Côte d'Ivoire report: #1Lib1Ref, Côte d'Ivoire participates for the 2nd time France report: Fonds André Cros; #1lib1ref; Library of Dinan; LATMOS Germany report: sustainability beyond metrics Indonesia report: Digitizing the letters from Dewantara Kirti Griya Museum Yogyakarta continues Italy report: Seventeen: let's talk and celebrate! Macedonia report: Importance of digitization in 21 century Netherlands report: Local heritage made available through Wikimedia & 3rd Wikicafé Tilburg Norway report: Image collection from Armenia and Sami bibliography Serbia report: #1lib1ref first time in Serbia: 786 references added! Spain report: #1Lib1Ref Sweden report: Photos, 3D and training with the National Heritage Board Tunisia report: Upload Book UK report: Oxford Wikidata project Ukraine report: Libraries at the Forefront of Running All-Out Action for Ukrainian Wikipedia USA report: Wikipedia Day Wikidata report: Our constraint reports won't constrain you! WMF GLAM report: Call for case studies, #1lib1ref, Structured Commons and more Calendar: February's GLAM events Read this edition in full • Single-page To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

This Month in GLAM – Volume VIII, Issue II, February 2018 Headlines Belgium report: Photo contest Wiki Loves Public Space Brazil report: Starting new GLAM partnerships Bulgaria report: The first Bulgarian wikitown presented at an International Tourist Fair in Sofia Côte d'Ivoire report: Editing with more librarians as we expanded #1Lib1Ref campaign Finland report: Finland's First Wikimedian in Residence to Kansallisarkisto Germany report: GLAM in galleries Italy report: Boosting collaborations Macedonia report: Startup of the WikiIndustry project Norway report: Intern program for library students Sweden report: WiR at The National Museums of World Culture UK report: Scotland's Public Libraries move toward first edit-a-thons USA report: February made me shiver Special story: Pattypan 18.02: The uploading tool now includes STL support Wikidata report: Cool Tools WMF GLAM report: Structured Data on Commons, Wikidata Workshop materials, and Spring Travel Calendar: March's GLAM events Read this edition in full • Single-page To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

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)

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 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.

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.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

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.
Broadly, general sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)