User talk:CFCF/Archive 32

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 IX, Issue V, May 2019 Headlines From the team: Your help is needed Armenia report: Cooperation with Central Bank of Armenia Australia report: Festivals of history, heritage and #1Lib1Ref Brazil report: Full catalog of Impressionist painter Eliseu Visconti into Wikidata and Commons Canada report: New partnership with Library and Archives Canada, and a GLAM Wiki Summit in Toronto Colombia report: Free Software Festival Finland report: Starting to work with the Saami languages Indonesia report: More Kajawen on Commons Italy report: Open air, artistic and historical edit-a-thons North Macedonia report: WikiScout Poland report: 30 years on: Free elections, free market Serbia report: Wikipedian in Residence at Serbian National Theatre Spain report: International Museum Day and FESABID19 Sweden report: Runic Recordings UK report: Data Week and Data Joy USA report: Asian Pacific American History Month Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons report: Updates on development; GLAM pilot projects; Wikimania Hackathon with GLAM focus are Wikipedia Library report: Books & Bytes–Issue 33, March–April 2019 Wikidata report: Library of Congress recognition; Hackathon results Wikimedia and Libraries User Group report: Hangout with Wikimedia and Libraries User Group WMF GLAM report: Creative Commons Global Summit 2019 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.

You have been a member of Wiki Project Med Foundation (WPMEDF) in the past. Your membership, however, appears to have expired. As such this is a friendly reminder encouraging you to officially rejoin WPMEDF. There are no associated costs. Membership gives you the right to vote in elections for the board. The current membership round ends in 2020.

Thanks again :-) The team at Wiki Project Med Foundation---Avicenno (talk) 05:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM – Volume IX, Issue VI, June 2019 Headlines Armenia report: Third round of cooperation with Hovhannes Toumanian Museum Australia report: Toodyaypedia, City of Canning, WoW2019, and the Pilbara Brazil report: Partnership with Football Museum brings visibility to entries about women’s soccer on Wikipedia Côte d'Ivoire report: #1Lib1Ref edit-athons and restrospective of +190 articles improved France report: Regular workshops Indonesia report: Introduction to Wikimedia Commons and Structured data Mexico report: Wiki Loves Mexico Netherlands report: Image donation; Wiki goes Caribbean meeting on slavery and plantations in Suriname; Dutch open public library data; Field study collaboration Wikimedia and Libraries Norway report: The International Year of Indigenous Languages 2019 Poland report: Documentary photographs from National Archives and WikiPlato Serbia report: Continuation of residences Sweden report: Wikidata imports; Data roundtripping project UK report: Oxford and Coventry Updates USA report: LGBTQ+ Pride Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons report: Development updates; GLAM focus area at the Wikimania Hackathon Wikidata report: Want new tools? We've got 'em! 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.

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 34, May – June 2019

• Partnerships
• #1Lib1Ref
• Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
• Global branches update
• Bytes in brief

French version of Books & Bytes is now available on meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:20, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM – Volume IX, Issue VII, July 2019 Headlines Armenia report: Members of the National Assembly of Armenia Australia report: Staying warm over winter Germany report: Heidelberg symposium Indonesia report: Cultural Gardener Summer Project in Indonesia Ireland report: Collaboration with the PhotoIreland Foundation Italy report: Archeology in alpine valleys Norway report: Sámi place names – collaboration with the Sámi Várdobáiki Language Center Sweden report: More bibliographic data on Wikidata; National Library of Sweden; GLAM activities Wikimania UK report: Oxford and Coventry Updates Uganda report: #1Lib1Ref Uganda 2019 USA report: Summer meetups and Picnics Map the GLAM report: Visualising the status and the spread of a cultural collection in Wikipedia Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons report: Other statements; Wikimania; blog posts on SDC Wikipedia Library report: Books & Bytes–Issue 34, May–June 2019 Wikidata report: I ain't no square with my corkscrew hair WMF GLAM report: OpenGLAM, Wikimania and Structured Commons 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.

Hello CFCF,

I am Bowen Yu, a Ph.D. student from GroupLens Research at the University of Minnesota - Twin Cities. Currently, we are undertaking a study about turnover (editors leaving and joining) in WikiProjects within Wikipedia. We are trying to understand the effects of member turnovers in the WikiProject group, in terms of the group performance and member interaction, with a purpose of learning how to build successful online communities in future. More details about our project can be found on this meta-wiki page.

I would like to invite you for an interview if you are interested in our study and willing to share your experience with us. The interview will be about 30 - 45 minutes via either Skype or Google Hangout. You will receive a $10 gift card as compensation afterwards.

Please reach me at [email protected] if you are interested or have any questions.

Thank you,

Bowen

Hello, CFCF. You have new messages at Bobo.03's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, CFCF. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding The Troubles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Released January 2018  · Previous newsletter  · Next

Hello WikiProject Anatomy participant! This is our sixth newsletter, documenting what's going on in WikiProject Anatomy, news, current projects and other items of interest.

I value feedback, and if you think I've missed something, or don't wish to receive this again, please leave a note on my talk page, or remove your name from the mailing list.

Yours truly, --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

	new good articles since last newsletter include Thyroid, Hypoglossal nerve, Axillary arch, Human brain, Cerebrospinal fluid, Accessory nerve, Gallbladder, and Interventricular foramina (neuroanatomy)
	I write an Introduction to Anatomy on Wikipedia in the Journal of Anatomy [1]
	Vagina receives a lot of attention on its way to good article status.
	We reach two projects goals of 20 good articles, and less than half of our articles as stubs, in July 2017. [2]
	A discussion about two preferred section titles takes place here.

Seeing as we have so many new members, and a constant stream of new editors to our articles, I would like to write in this issue about how our project and articles are arranged.

The main page for WikiProject Anatomy is here. We are a WikiProject, which is a group of editors interested in editing and maintaining anatomy articles. Our editors come from all sorts of disciplines, from academically trained anatomists, students, and lay readers, to experienced Wikipedia editors. Based on previous discussions, members of our project have chosen to focus mainly on human anatomy ([3]), with a separate project for animal anatomy (WP:ANAN). A WikiProject has no specific rights or abilities on Wikipedia, however it does allow a central venue for discussion on different issues where interested editors can be asked to contribute, collaborate, and perhaps reach a consensus.

Project and article structure

Wikipedia has about 5,500,000 articles. Of these, about 20,000 fall under our project, about 5,000 of which are text-containing articles. Articles are manually assigned by editors as relating to our project (many using the rater tool). As well as articles, other Wikipedia pages in our project include, lists, disambiguation pages, and redirects. Our articles are improving over time, and you can have a look at our goals and progress, or last newsletter, to get a better idea about this.

Our articles are structured according to the manual of style, specifically here. The manual of style is a guideline, which "is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply", and prescribes the layout of anatomy articles, most of which follow it.

Our articles are organised in a particular way. Most articles have a infobox in its lead, describing key characteristics about the article. Because we have so many articles, articles are often linked together in different ways. An article tends to focus on the primary topic it is written about. Further information can be linked like this, or piped (like this). We use navboxes, which are the boxes at the bottom of articles providing links to similar topics, as well as hatnotes. Typical hatnotes in articles include {{main}}, {{see also}} and {{further}}. This lets us link to relevant and related articles. The bottom of articles also shows categories, which store groups of related articles.

Tools

For interested editors, our project offers a number of additional tools to help edit our articles. On our main page appears a log of the most edited recent articles. An automatic list of recent changes to all our articles is here. We have a list of the most popular pages (WP:ANAT500). To keep abreast of news and discussions, it is best to monitor our talk page, newsletters, and our article alerts, which automatically lists deletion, good article, featured article, and move proposals. We also have a open tasks page for editors to create lists of tasks that other editors can collaborate with. Articles are also manually assigned to a "discipline", so interested editors in for example, gross anatomy, histology, or embryology can easily locate articles via here.

Our project has all sorts of smaller items that editors may or may not know about, including a barnstar, user box ({{User WPAnatomy}}), welcoming template ({{WPANATOMY welcome}}) and fairly comprehensive listing of templates (here).

Invitation

We are always happy to help out, and I invite new editors, or for those with any questions relating to how to get around the confusing environment that is Wikipedia, to post on our talk page or, for a kind introduction to questions, at the WP:TEAHOUSE.

• Ask questions! Talk with other editors, collaborate - and if you need help, ask!
• Continue to add content (and citations) to our articles
• Collaborate and discuss with other editors - many hands make light work!
• Find a space, task or type of article that you enjoy editing - there are lots of untended niches out there

This has been transcluded to the talk pages of all active WikiProject Anatomy users. To opt-out, leave a message on the talkpage of Tom (LT) or remove your name from the mailing list

Thanks for uploading File:Göteborgs universitet seal.svg. 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) 02:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM – Volume IX, Issue VIII, August 2019 Headlines Côte d'Ivoire report: Strategic salon around GLAM perspectives Finland report: Continuing our work with the Saami communities Indonesia report: Digitization of banknotes and introduction to structured data on Commons (continued) Netherlands report: Wikidata map making workshop Norway report: Women in Red: collaboration with The National Library in Norway and Oslo Metropolitan University Sweden report: GLAM communities of practice; Problematic data UK report: New and old collaborations USA report: Wikimania 2019 Special story: Wikimania GLAM Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons report: Recent presentations, workshops and blog posts Wikidata report: Work for us, or just tell us what you think of us WMF GLAM report: Updates on OpenGLAM 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.

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 35, July – August 2019

• Wikimania
• We're building something great, but..
• Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
• A Wikibrarian's story
• Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi! Not sure why you made your recent edits to Alternative medicine. According to dictionary.com, "therapy" and "treatment" are pretty much synonyms. In common usage, "therapy" usually refers to something that's multi-process. For example, chemotherapy, physical therapy, and psychotherapy are part of evidence-based medicine (although there's some controversy about the last of these). In my edit last year expanding WebMD#Criticism, I used "treatment" -- I believe correctly -- to refer to three forms of alt-med that WebMD promotes; it would have sounded strange to refer to them as "therapies". By the way, I don't mean to litter your user-page, but I've voluntarily self-banned myself from both Alternative medicine and Talk:Alternative medicine so as to avoid trouble and time sinks, and that's why I'm putting this here. NightHeron (talk) 14:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

NightHeron — I replaced the wording because I consider "treatment" to imply that there is at least a chance that the intervention effectively "treats" the condition. Therapy is a much looser term, and it covers topics such as aromatherapy, which in no sense treat anything. This may be idiosyncratic, but the more I read of the literature — it seems quite an apt distinction. Carl Fredrik ^talk 11:22, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

CFCF, sure, of course you know the medical literature and I don't. But in common usage among non-medical people (that is, most Wikipedia readers) I don't think that distinction holds. Rather, "therapy" seems to imply a multi-step process, whether evidence-based (like chemotherapy) or not (like aromatherapy), and is not usually used for something simpler like taking a pill on a regular basis, whether the pill is evidence-based like a statin or alt-med like a fish-oil supplement. NightHeron (talk) 11:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

If nothing else, I can say is that it reads better for me, and that therapy does not imply that in medical literature. However disregarding the semantics, funny you should bring up specifically that example — because most of the controversy surrounding that topic is not related to whether it is alternative or not. There is quite a wealth of literature (read evidence) — showing that Ω3:Ω6 ratio is one of the best predictors of cardiovascular events [4], whereas LDL is a horrible marker [5]. The issue is down to whether statins confer a reasonable benefit[6] and if supplementation of Ω3 [7] is sufficient to improve the Ω3:Ω6 ratio and decrease CVD.

That makes it precisely not an alternative medicine issue — even though it in the popular press can be understood as one. There is biological plausibility between one (omega 3), whereas the underlying mechanistic explanation for statins has been falsified (LDL is not the "artery clogging cholesterol" it was once believed to be). It just goes to show how complex the field is. Carl Fredrik ^talk 12:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

CFCF, that's very interesting. Thank you for the information and citations. The information I had and the source I used when editing WebMD#Criticism (Julia Belluz of Vox) must be out-of-date on fish-oil supplements. I guess that at one point in time fish-oil was considered alt-med, but now it's in either category, depending on whether it's produced as a prescription pharmaceutical or as an over-hyped supplement. As you say, it's complicated. Concerning statins, I also didn't know the extent of the controversy concerning the importance of reducing LDL. Your source [2] doesn't really say it's "horrible" as a biomarker, but rather: "Cholesterol levels are among the most widely known examples of biomarkers. However, even though LDL cholesterol level is an excellent biomarker in many situations, it does not always fully predict cardiovascular disease outcomes; in other words, it cannot be assumed to be a surrogate endpoint. No surrogate endpoint is a perfect substitute for a clinical endpoint." The Wikipedia article on statins does not indicate any controversy about overall effectiveness or about the importance of lowering LDL, but only controversy about side effects which, according to the article, have been exaggerated in the media. So if there is really serious doubt about the significance of LDL levels or the value of statins, it seems the article Statin needs some editing and updating. NightHeron (talk) 23:23, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm updating the outreach:Wikipedian_in_Residence. Is it correct for your WiR position? I've used it to update Carl Fredrik Sjöland (Q69456605) so that I can automate the WiR table (in progress). T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 05:44, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Evolution and evolvability — Oh, right that table. It's not false per see, but I've only worked during the summer/early autumn, but it has been every year since 2016. I was actually there just a week ago. I don't really know how to fill that in, especially for automation. Thanks for the item ;) .. Carl Fredrik ^talk 08:21, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I think it's probably most sensible to keep it as ongoing in that case, since making a separate short entry for each year seems like it'd over-complicate it. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 03:35, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:27, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM – Volume IX, Issue IX, September 2019 Headlines Colombia report: The GLAM team from Wikimedia Colombia in OpenConLatAm Finland report: Photographs and events France report: European Heritage Days Indonesia report: Image donation by Indonesian Air Force Italy report: Wikimedia Italia Summer School Sweden report: Open cultural heritage; More libraries in Africa on Wikidata; Global MIL Week 2019 Feature Conference; Kulturhistoria som gymnasiearbete; Wiki Loves Monuments UK report: Oxford, Khalili Collections and Endangered Archives USA report: Hispanic Heritage and Disability Awareness Month Special story: Help the Movement Learn about Content Campaigns & Supporting newcomers in Wikidata training courses! Wikidata report: Tie a knot in your handkerchief WMF GLAM report: GLAM Manager Role Announced! 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.

A new wikimedian in residence table should soon be implemented based on data from outreach:Wikimedian_in_residence (draft table). If there are any WiRs you know that are missing, please add them. In the meantime, see the map! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 08:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi CFCF! I stumbled upon Wikipedia:WikiProject Grey literature while looking through lists of WikiProjects. It looks like you were drafting a WikiProject last year but then moved on to other things? In its current state, it seems like its not a WikiProject per se (i.e. it's not a place where editors are collaborating on some topic). Any objection to me moving it back to your userspace for now? You're certainly welcome to re-launch it anytime (you may find the sometimes-dormant Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals useful for drumming up interest, or more likely your native WT:MED). I hope all is well. Happy editing. Ajpolino (talk) 00:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM – Volume IX, Issue X, October 2019 Headlines Australia report: WikiD at the Design Museum Colombia report: Wikimedia Colombia in Argentinean event Czech Republic report: Wikipedia Week of Libraries in Broumov Estonia report: Nordic cooperation + Wikisource + library information Finland report: Collaborative histories France report: GLAM working group at WMFr; Partnership with AAF Indonesia report: Numismatic items from Sumatran Numismatic Museum Malaysia report: Wikipedia Penang Meetup 2 @ Tuanku Fauziah Museum and Gallery, University of Science Malaysia Netherlands report: Share Your Data master classes for GLAMs; New project manager WMNL; Images from Africa Norway report: Radio Cinema at the National Library in Oslo Sweden report: Nordic Museum publications on Wikidata and Commons; Wikipedia training in Härnösand; Open cultural heritage data in focus in Visby UK report: Khalili; Museums + Tech; Oxford WIR placement ends USA report: Spooky Autumn meetups Special story: #WikiForHumanRights Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons report: Getting started, Tool highlights, Blog posts and presentations about SDC Wikipedia Library report: Books & Bytes–Issue 35, July–August 2019 Wikidata report: We Are Seven Wikimedia and Libraries User Group report: October 16th meeting minutes Wikisource report: Community Wishlist Survey 2020 and Wiki Advanced Training 2019 WMF GLAM report: 1Lib1Ref, Wikimedia Sweden Research and other updates 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.

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 36, September – October 2019

• #1Lib1Ref January 2020
• #1Lib1Ref 2019 stories and learnings

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Module:Gallery/sandbox/cf has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the module's entry on the Templates for discussion page. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:55, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading File:Blue Zones Dan Buettner Book.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM – Volume IX, Issue XI, November 2019 Headlines Australia report: Wiki Loves Monuments Finland report: Combining the old and the new France report: Wikimedia training workshops; Conference in the city of Arles Netherlands report: IHLIA starts monthly Wikipedia writing sessions, Wiki Techstorm 2019 New Zealand report: Wellington talks and edit-a-thons Poland report: Transgressing the boundaries of internal academic discourse Sweden report: Minor grants and Library training USA report: A busy conference season, a new Caribbean community and introducing a tool for adding artwork metadata Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons report: Continued development, documentation, and blog posts Wikipedia Library report: Books & Bytes-Issue 36, September–October 2019 Wikidata report: Research published Wikisource report: Results of Community Wishlist Survey 2020 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.

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.

You have shown interest in the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Barkeep49 (talk) 16:56, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM – Volume IX, Issue XII, December 2019 Headlines Armenia report: GLAM+Wikidata Collaboration between Armenia and Albania Czech Republic report: Edit-a-thon Prachatice 2 Kosovo report: Transitional Justice edit-a-thon held in Prishtina New Zealand report: A Wikipedian in Residence and a Wikipedian writes Norway report: Plaintext Wikipedia dumps for the National Library Sweden report: Swedish Performing Arts Agency; Bibliographic data about Swedish periodicals USA report: White Elephant; WikiWednesday Salon; Cascadia Wikimedians annual meeting Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons report: New blog posts Wikidata report: Job vacancies and item 80 million WMF GLAM report: Mapping GLAM-Wiki collaborations 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.

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 37, November – December 2019

• #1Lib1Ref
• Wikimedia and Libraries User Group

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM – Volume X, Issue I, January 2020 Headlines Australia report: Burning Finland report: Wikiviews from Benin: Wikipedia in the Tower of Babel France report: Paris musées; Bibliothèque Sainte Geneviève Indonesia report: 1st PD Day in Indonesia; visitation to GLAM institutions Italy report: Brand new and old faithful wikimedian in residence! New Zealand report: Macrons and museums Norway report: Sámi cultural heritage Sweden report: FindingGLAMs Challenge; Art by Edvard Munch from the Thiel Gallery; More European archives on Wikidata; OpenGLAM now! – watch the presentations; Wikipedia in Libraries Switzerland report: Wikidata for Libraries Hackday Series USA report: Knowledge Graphs and Meetups Special story: New Book 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.

Just FYI, I changed "RfC" in your closing comments to "RM", because these are two different processes and WP:RM handles moves rather than WP:RfC. Sorry for the refactoring. I would not be too surprised if you have some trouble based upon being a non-admin closing the requests early when 7 days is mandated, but I am not bothered by the closes myself. On the other hand, you suggested that all pages that are involved should be included in the new request. I think this is probably not the case for the virus (2019 novel coronavirus-->SARS-CoV-2 or Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) because all of the other articles involved will be discussing changing names related to what the disease is called (e.g. 2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease-->COVID-19 or Coronavirus disease 2019, 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak-->2019–20 COVID-19 outbreak, etc.). Can you clarify this issue in your closing comments to draw a distinction? Best, Dekimasuよ! 02:49, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, sorry about that miss. I don't really mind a little bit of trouble for me, if is saves 100 editors from arguing when better things could be done for now. I think a better way to put it would be that all the article naming should be considered when starting an RM, as there were currently several different ones. I'll see if I can fix it. Carl Fredrik ^talk 02:58, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

If you're serious about saving editors trouble, than I suggest you either revert your close, or change it to close but "move to the new title", since that is the title it is inevitably going to end up at. Otherwise, you're going to see a WP:MR on top of the (in my view) totally unnecessary discussion on whether to keep this title for a couple more days (for no particularly convincing reason). Sean Heron (talk) 07:24, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

CFCF simply failed to follow the guidelines on closure in WP:RMNAC - did not wait for seven days, which would suggest not knowing the guidelines (therefore non-admin closure is inappropriate). Personally I think the page move proposals are wrong-headed, and would prefer different move proposals be restarted, but WP:MR may be necessary if only to stop other editors prematurely and inappropriately closing discussion, thereby disrupting the discussion process. Either that or revert the closure, but I don't think CFCF should change them to "move to the new title" since that may result in a WP:MR anyway from those unhappy with the conclusion reached by a non-admin. Hzh (talk) 09:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Hzh — I disagree profoundly that I did not follow the guidelines on closure — and have no further comments as to that.
As for the comments from Sean Heron, I find your position in this question to clearly indicate editing with an agenda. If you read my RM-close I am very clear that it should be taken without prejudice for opening a new RM. The intent was not to quash discussion but to postpone "voting" and to direct discussion elsewhere, as it has been accurately pointed out — less adversarially toned discussion occured. Carl Fredrik ^talk 03:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

The point is that when something is highly contentious (as evidenced by the number of people participating in a short time), then leave the closure to the admin. Otherwise it will not help anything because someone will contest the decision, and it will only prolong the discussion elsewhere (I have seen this in other cases when non-admins closed highly-contentious disputes, one of which spilt over to multiple boards due to the disagreement over the closure). In cases where the overwhelming majority !vote for one option, then no one is bothered if you close early. Another previous closure was contested because the closure ignored the majority opinion using a wrong argument, therefore it was reverted. In this case, you did presented a valid argument, but it is still preferable to let the discussion run its course than attempting to cut it short. Hzh (talk) 11:04, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

(Edit-conflict) To be clear, I'm awaiting your reaction (as suggested by WP:MR, but I'll be opening the Move review myself if the issue I'm addressing is not resolved (and if noone preempts me). According to somewhat arcane processes here, Consensus is driven by Policy, not by the number of "supports" or "opposes" going one way or the other (not-a-vote). And the policy is as clear as it gets - one the one hand we have a name that had a 1/3 higher "Google Trends" result than the temporary official name, and on the other hand we have the name used by the WHO, national health agencies, all and every journal, as well as the majority of (reliable) news outlets - ie the WP:COMMONNAME.

Hear from you later, Sean Heron (talk) 09:46, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@Hzh: @Sean Heron: Seems to me that 'policy' pages you guys should be reading are WP:PLAYPOLICY and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I you keep talking about WP:MR and threathening it as if it's some sort of punishment but you won't actually open one because the community will most definately see your POV pushing as WP:TENDENTIOUS. You guys need to step away and cool it with lashing out against uninvolved editors following very established policy such as WP:COMMONAMES. Melmann 20:14, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

You should be careful with accusing anyone of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing without any actual evidence that this is what they are doing. Discussion pages are meant for discussion, pointing out that what is done is wrong in talk pages is not WP:TENDENTIOUS, which is about content editing. Hzh (talk) 21:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@Melmann - Didn't mean to, and don't think I was lashing out against anyone. Just pointing out that I think these closes are on very thin ice (if the reasoning is "save people trouble", then that reasoning, in my view, can be far better applied to just going through with the moves, as its pretty obvious that's where the articles are going to end up at). And if I say that "I will in fact open a Move review myself if the issue is not addressed", then I'm trying to be forthright actually... I get that it can be read as threatening, and I'm sorry if its taken that way (it wasn't).

I certainly don't see how I'm playing policy or crusading against WP Policy to "right wrongs". In fact, the wrong is that the articles are still at the current title at all (it never really was the common name). But if you're trying to point out that I think its a good thing to move an article from a title that encourages xenophobia to one that doesn't - then sure, you're 100% right on that one (the point being - I'm not crusading against established policy in doing so). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean Heron (talk • contribs) 21:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi CFCF,

the page Coronavirus disease 2019 has been protected to prevent further edit warring on a semi-protected page, between users whose experience should be high enough not to engage in such behavior. Please be more careful when the protection expires.

Thanks and best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Dear Doctor: your help will be appreciated to revise recently created page Antonio Vidal-Puig which corresponds to a colleague of yours from the University of Cambridge, and which has been tagged with {Cleanup-PR|article} template. I wonder if you can suggest or possibly do the changes you may deem necessary to solve the issues posed by the tag and hopefully be able to remove the note. Thank you.Neuralia (talk) 14:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Carl! You expressed interest over at the pandemic page in helping welcome new editors. Per my reply, here are some initiatives in progress at the WP:Welcoming committee and WP:Help Project you may be interested in:

• Wikipedia talk:Help Project#Efforts underway to revamp the Task Center
• Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to streamline the welcome template
• Wikipedia talk:Introduction#Proposal: Redirect this page and WP:Tutorial to Help:Introduction
• Wikipedia talk:Welcoming committee#Let's get rid of Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome to Wikipedia

Your insights would be welcome on any of these! Cheers, Sdkb (talk) 19:26, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I do not understand why you undid my change https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coronavirus_disease_2019&diff=946645920&oldid=946645856 of the Coronavirus disease 2019 article.

My background is hearing how Mr "trump" and his "republican" friends and media use other names, and I can only assume, for reasons of manipulation and misleading people.

Many people can have "other names" for many concepts and one doesn't usually highlight that. Example: Jeans - Pants - Trousers.

I think the whole section of "other names" should be removed, the disease is called COVID-19, which is taken from Coronavirus Disease 2019. One may cover the above "wrong" names under the Terminology section of the article section.

I looked through the references https://time.com/5768230/wuhan-pneumonia-flu-crisis-china-government/ and https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/01/14/china-response-wuhan-pneumonia-better-sars/ and I think they are hardly authoritative.

Can you give a good reason?

Stephanwehner (talk) 03:04, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Stephanwehner — Yes, it's definitely a complicated issue, but also not something where we should be too quick to judge the consensus, and with an ongoing discussion it was premature to remove them all. You can find the terms which I restored in the medical literature and in press releases by major public health and disease control agencies. I don't like to bring my personal opinion into the issue of the new names uttered by politicians; but as for the ones I left, they weren't obviously controversial when first used, and were used widely. Carl Fredrik ^talk 20:01, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm silly. That's all. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

ToBeFree — Thank you — and no you're not, it's a tough situation for all of us. Many new editors with strong opinions, an old crew trying to keep order; and crazy personal situations all-around. We're all doing our best. I'd give you a beer too, maybe next Wikimania. Apologies are in order from my side, I won't bother you on your talk-page more for now. Carl Fredrik ^talk 20:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Carl Fredrik, it have only been your messages that have quickly ended the problematic situation. Without them, the page would still be protected, possibly tomorrow and the day after. Thank you for the kind response to my apology, and for even having been the first to apologize, even in a situation where your valid criticism was incorrectly dismissed. You'd be absolutely welcome to message me again at any time in the future, and bothering people about bad decisions is fine. Regarding Wikimania, I had only recently seen the rescheduling and have to admit that I was sad about the location thus staying the same in 2021. I am irrationally, overly afraid of criminality in foreign countries – either about becoming a victim of a crime or being unjustly convicted. I shouldn't have had a look at [8], which is a pretty normal description that could fit to any country in the world including Germany, yet scares me enough to stay home. Perhaps that changes until 2021, but I'm afraid the beer will need to wait a few more years. :)

All the best,
Tobias (talk) 20:34, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi CFCF, Please let me know why you have deleted all my edits (to the Wikipedia page 'biopsychosocial model'). In my edits I used good peer reviewed academic articles (not primary sources) as supporting references to replace/add to the old references cited in the article (not primary sources). I have explained a few of the edits I did in more detail below (it would take too long to explain all the edits).

- In this article, the section “Current Model” cited an article (Borrell-Carrió et al) that was published more then 15 years ago! I replaced it with a 2020 article as well as a 2018 article published in Lancet that is available online.

- In the “History” section, there were a couple of sentences that make unsupported claims (sentences “For example, a person may have a genetic predisposition ……… cognitive factors must trigger the illness). These sentences do not have a reference citation and also research shows that just the opposite may be the case (see the reference “Culverhouse, R. C., et al. (2018). Collaborative meta-analysis finds no evidence of a strong interaction between stress and 5-HTTLPR genotype contributing to the development of depression. Molecular psychiatry, 23(1), 133”).

- The other edits I did also have good explanations, which are too long to write here. I also felt that the article deviates from the main focus of biopsychosocial model in several places. Also some sentences were written in a child-like (non academic) manner, which I corrected. The edits I did were carefully planned over several days (a lot of time was spent on them). Could you please provide me detailed reasons as to why you deleted each one of my carefully planned edits.

Sandyshore (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Sandyshore — Peer review has nothing to do with whether an article is a WP:Primary source or not. Please take a look at WP:MEDRS#Respect_secondary_sources, it has a very detailed section on this. Carl Fredrik ^talk 22:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi CFCF,

I know very well that peer review has nothing to do with whether something is a primary source or not. I have an academic background and therefore I know this very well.

Please note that none of the articles I used in my many edits today were primary sources (i.e., they were not based on singular studies – please feel free to take a careful look at my edits). I used secondary and even tertiary sources (i.e., articles that summarized a range of primary and secondary sources to give an overview of current understanding of the topic). I did not use a single primary source in those edits.

Also, I was planning to delete a primary source that is currently listed in the article (Simon et al., 2019 – it is currently listed close to the end of the article) – but JzG reverted my edits before I was finished with my edits.

I truly hope that you would revert my edits, considering that I did several days of planning before doing the edits today.

Thank you.

Sandyshore (talk) 23:45, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Sandyshore — If you truly did use secondary sources, feel free to restore your content yourself; it may be a good idea to refer to this discussion in the edit summary, to list that I do not consider it as you reverting me if you remove all primary sources (see WP:3RR for why this is important). I do not have time to take a closer look until tomorrow. Carl Fredrik ^talk 00:01, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello Carl: Thank you. As you suggested, I reverted to the previous version and also spent a lot of time today to carefully plan and edit the article again, but JzG has deleted all my edits again! Could you please do something about this please?

Thank you.

Sandyshore (talk) 17:15, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Hey there! I noticed you reverted my change to Severe acute respiratory syndrome, citing concerns about people in China getting confused about SARS vs Special Administrative Regions. I think my change is still justified as, well, Wikipedia is blocked in China, and it's not 2003 any more (In light of COVID-19, "SARS" of any variation means the syndrome, regardless of if it is a small "s"). ItsPugle (talk) 07:35, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I thought about changing it back and took a second look, but didn't go through with it. I agree it's not an ideal solution, and the whole case would be better handled in a short sentence or two about the confusion with SARs in the article. But since there was no such section I think we ought to keep the blurb at the top of the article until it's been expanded with a mention like that. Carl Fredrik ^talk 07:56, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I get that. Maybe it's worth just merging it in with the other {{about}} tag? That'll mean that it's at least styled the same. And maybe instead of " the SARs of China," it could be "Chinese Special Administrative Regions" - just so people know that that it's talking about such regions, and not the prevalence of SARS in China? ItsPugle (talk) 07:59, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

ItsPugle — Sure, feel free to go ahead with that. You could also use the {{confuse}}-tag. Carl Fredrik ^talk 08:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your rapid response. As I stated, I am still learning about wikipedia. However, I would like to see this new page launched. Do you know of someone in the community who might be interested in doing a kick-start for this in the near future? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Javacertified5000 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I've responded on the talk page: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_COVID-19#Charity Carl Fredrik ^talk 22:12, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Corona in sweden. Since you had some involvement with the Corona in sweden redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:40, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Carl Fredrik, hope you will reply me in the talk page of the biopsychosocial model. In my comments on that page, I have clearly explained that all the references I cited are ones that were published within the last three years, and also that none of them were primary sources. I would also really like to know how/why the biopsychosocial model is considered “woo.” In my comments, I also listed several problematic issues related to this wikipedia article – so, instead of actually carrying out my edits, I can simply apply tags that identify these problematic issues so that someone in the future can come along and address them – that way, people reading this wikipedia article would not be mislead/misguided.

Thank you.

Sandyshore (talk) 16:20, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Sandyshore — I am very busy up until the 16th, and after that will likely be even more busy with COVID-19. I will do my best to respond, but rest assured I have not claimed the biopsychosocial model is woo. Rather certain interpretations of the model are woo, like how certain application of legitimate pharmaceuticals are woo when misused. I will point out that I find the biopsychosocial model fascinating and central in understanding many conditions. As I have not gone into depth with regards to your sources I can't say whether they are woo, but I know JzG is very good at spotting it, and trust his judgement. Carl Fredrik ^talk 16:27, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Carl Fredrik. By the way, all my sources were peer reviewed established academic journal articles and are NOT woo. I find it very difficult to carry out a conversation with JzG and his short answers are not convincing at all – therefore I will wait for you to reply whenever that might be. (By the way, I also think it is very irresponsible of editors to delete all edits without engaging in a conversation in the talk page before doing so – as long as I know this goes against Wikipedia policies).

Sandyshore (talk) 16:47, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

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

Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:17, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi,

I'm shocked. Did my recent mistake contribute to this decision in any way?

Independently of the answer, I wish you all the best.

Best regards,
Tobias (talk) 00:44, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thanks for all your work over the years. Hope to see you back sometime. All the best. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	I hope after you take a step back, you would rejoin Wikipedia! Reciprocater (Talk) 06:15, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

You'd gone before I'd finished looking. There's been no discussion with the user - there's no welcome, or anything else on their talk page. I'd start there. Hope that helps, Cabayi (talk) 08:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

IRC crashed. Yeah, I was more interested in whether the additions constituted BLP-violations that should be purged from the history. If the answer was no, that is a learning experience for me as well. Thanks. Carl Fredrik ^talk 09:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I took the name off the one which remained. They're not public figures so their bigotry or xenophobia or tweeting-without-a-brain is viable as examples of public reaction. Using Wikipedia as a public pillory is not. Had they not been sourced I'd be inclined to revdel, but as they each came with a source which corroborated the story, there's no need or point. I'm AGFing on the Texas one - the source won't load for me, a GDPR HTTP 451 I guess, though it doesn't show like that.

You may get a different opinion from another admin who is more experienced in BLP issues, but I'm pretty sure of my reasoning, and I see you've already found WP:BLP/N. FWIW I agree the article needs radical pruning, but I don't see that being successful while people are still so heated on the topic. Regards, Cabayi (talk) 12:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 21, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:35, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Please file it under the correct master. Cabayi (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2020 (UTC) ...with some evidence. Cabayi (talk) 19:42, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Cabayi — I was not aware that a new master-account had been found upon reporting. I don't even know where to place it in a non-automated way. I also do not know what more evidence is necessary. Last time I posted about a new account that had only edited three articles, all of which were an odd combination to begin with and closely tied to the contributions of another recently blocked editor — that counted as sufficient evidence. Carl Fredrik ^talk 20:05, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

The same automated stuff you did with Feinoa, if you do it again with Ineedtostopforgetting as the master, that'll be fine. And then self-revert your addition at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Feinoa, and all will be well. It's two edits for you to do, it's at least 4 for any clerk who tries to fix it (move, history merge, & adjust headers on both reports).

As for the evidence, I didn't examine it, it just looked at first glance to be very light. If you think it's enough, that's fine. Thanks, Cabayi (talk) 20:17, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Cabayi — I've done it. That all in all makes 4 edits for me too, and learning a new process. I can't see it going better in the future either, because Twinkle doesn't let me easily know if a new master has been found. It seems like this way was more work for everyone. Carl Fredrik ^talk 21:01, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks for the feedback. I'll give it some thought and feed it to the Twinkle folks. Cabayi (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I've requested a fix at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle#SPI reports. Regards, Cabayi (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Corona in sweden. Since you had some involvement with the Corona in sweden redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:26, 24 April 2020 (UTC)