User talk:CFCF/Archive 22

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The Signpost: 22 December 2016

Extended confirmed protection policy RfC

You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob13Talk 15:56, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

CF, Happy Holiday/New Year!--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Ozzie10aaaa! A good holiday to you too! Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 17:56, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Best wishes for the holidays...

Gerard David - Adoration of the Kings - Google Art Project.jpg
Season's Greetings
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Adoration of the Kings (Gerard David, London) is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 09:08, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Johnbod, I really like the treasures you manage to dig up each year. :) Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 17:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for the assist on the talk page merge.

Concerning the initial revert on TOC nav, I rarely use rollback, and forgot it saved without providing the edit summary box first.

It's nice to meet another longtime editor. The Transhumanist 22:54, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

No problem, I'm happy with that as long as there is some form of motivation. However the portal-pages are in dire need of an update — it's just so big a job I have a hard time knowing where to start. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 22:58, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Portal:Contents isn't really a portal. It and its subpages are part of the list system. The contents pages were put in portal space as a compromise, many years ago. I have some experience with portal design. Which portal pages were you talking about? And what kind of update did you have in mind? The Transhumanist 23:12, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Template Editor

Hi, Carl. You implied in the discussion on ECP protection in templates that we need more template editors. I'd put my name in, but I haven't done the "active on Wikipedia dealing with protected templates" stuff as much as the policy suggests. I've done a lot of template work on Simple English Wikipedia, including on templates whose analogues are protected here, as well as at multilingual projects like Meta and Incubator. I've done a bunch of bidirectional templates and time templates. I've done a fair amount of similar work in the User: and Portal: spaces. And I'm a sysop at Ladino Wikipedia and Incubator. Question is: do you think the powers that be will be ok with my "aernate experience", or will they insist that only experience here matters? StevenJ81 (talk) 18:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

StevenJ81 I applied a few years ago and can't say how the process has changed by now. However, given your background I will support you, and if you look at the official guidelines you're more than qualified: WP:TPEGRANT. Go ahead and apply at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Template editor!
Ping me if you apply!
Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 18:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
@CFCF: Consider yourself pinged. Thanks for the encouragement. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Granted. Thanks for your help. StevenJ81 (talk) 02:54, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #241

Happy holidays

Just a quick note here[1]. As menigiomas are benign they are tumors rather than cancers. Adjusted. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:26, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Doc James — right, thanks. My excuse is that I wrote that at 4am. However, I still feel the formulation is problematic since the distinction is a technical one with large risk of causing confusion. Most lay-people, and many doctors refer at times to meningiomas as cancers due to the danger they pose despite being histologically benign. A bigger issue is that in translation "tumor" and "cancer" are not always distinguishable, and we may unintentionally introduce errors in other languages. And even when there are separate words the textbook definition of cancer may be less rigid in some languages, so that confusion arises on those grounds. I'm at odds as to how to fix it, but I do think it needs some clarification. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 13:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Have placed both in the body of the text. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)


Hello - thanks for your edit on safe-space. I probably did overcite the free speech line but in your edit summary you mentioned WP:WEASEL referring to Breitbart. Could you explain this to me as the link between the two isn't immediately apparent? Thanks - DrStrauss talk 16:59, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

The Weasel-word consisted of the "widely" part of "widely criticized". There is no doubt they have been criticized, but widely is far too much of a value-loaded word, it had nothing to do with Breitbart. The reason I removed those two sources out of the 5 that were there is simple: they were of lower quality, and the ones that remain are more than enough. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 17:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Ah, so it was a NPOV issue. That's fine, I agree in retrospect, I incorrectly thought more sources warrant "stronger" words but I shall avoid this in future. Thank you for your help! - DrStrauss talk 21:49, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Homeopathy update of information and correction of incomplete information

Hello, I haven't had much experience of editing here, but did receive some training in 2014, as part as a Welsh Wiki funded project. I at least learned that all sources must be referenced and the type of sources that could be used.

I noticed that on the homeopathy page, this information did not reflect the source: "… the Swiss Federal Health Office [et al] have each concluded that homeopathy is ineffective, and recommended against the practice receiving any further funding." This information dates from 2005. The reference cites Retrieved 2015-12-16. Yet this link goes to the following information.

[Last January, Interior Minister Didier Burkhalter announced that five therapies previously struck off the state insurance list – meaning they would not be reimbursed – will be reinstated as of 2012 as part of a six-year trial period. The sting: all must prove their “efficacy, cost-effectiveness and suitability” by 2017.

The therapies include: anthroposophical medicine, homeopathy, neural therapy, phytotherapy and traditional Chinese medicine.]

I replaced "… the Swiss Federal Health Office [et al] have each concluded that homeopathy is ineffective, and recommended against the practice receiving any further funding." with " the Swiss Federal Health Office reversed their decision for a period of five years to enable a review to be carried out." leaving the same citation.

I did also update a recent citation from the same source, with information effective from May 17, 2017. I realise that may have had too much detail for the section it was in — and indeed the information is there if the link is read. I would therefore like to reinstate the first alteration and add: "The interior ministry has announced plans to give five complementary therapies including homeopathy the same status as conventional medicine. Homeopathy, holistic medicine, herbal medicine, acupuncture and traditional Chinese medicine will acquire the same status as conventional medicine by May 2017 when it comes to health insurance." citing [1]

Many thanks for your time and attention — and patience. Talkinghorse (talk) 18:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)talkinghorse


  1. ^ "Swiss to recognise homeopathy as legitimate medicine". SWI Retrieved 2015-12-27.
Okay, I appreciate that you are coming here to talk about it Talkinghorse. The issue is that your addition was very large for being added to the lede. That the Swish retracted their report might be relevant elsewhere in the article, but for the lede it may only be appropriate to remove the mention entirely for now. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 18:36, 27 December 2016 (UTC)