User talk:CFCF/Archive 25

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Tag removal

Please stop removing mergeto and mergefrom tags while merge discussions are ongoing. See WP:MERGEPROP - step 3: Discuss the merger. Removing the tag stifles legitimate discussion and is disruptive. If you continue to do this then I will seek admin intervention. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

DrFleischman โ€” tags need to be accompanied by at least some measure of reason โ€” you can't just add tags and force them to be there. I've left the relevant tags for now, even though it seems very unlikely that a merge will happen. However merging the article on the US into the any of the main articles will never happen โ€” you are far more likely to get it through deletion (not happening either), because it will only act to further skew an already very skewed article. Carl Fredrik ๐Ÿ’Œ ๐Ÿ“ง 18:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I have explained both merger proposals in good faith and in the appropriate places with at least some level of reason. Your disagreement with those reasons is not a basis for edit warring or stifling discussion. If I am so obviously wrong then a consensus will form against me. In the meantime, I'm serious. Leave the tags there or I will take you to ANI. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
DrFleischman โ€” Sorry, I just realized there is nearly no independent content in the article on Fake news in the United States. Carl Fredrik ๐Ÿ’Œ ๐Ÿ“ง 18:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Can you please self-revert this edit so that the tag reflects the proposal? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:51, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 20

Wikipedia Library owl.svg The Wikipedia Library


Books & Bytes
Issue 20, November-December 2016
by Nikkimaria (talk ยท contribs), Ocaasi (talk ยท contribs), UY Scuti (talk ยท contribs), Samwalton9 (talk ยท contribs)

  • Partner resource expansions
  • New search tool for finding TWL resources
  • #1lib1ref 2017
  • Wikidata Visiting Scholar

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


Hi CFCF, This is discussed on the Talk page at "The document"; please join in there instead of re-inserting the information. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 19:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Drum brake image deletion

FYI: Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Drum brake.jpg Andy Dingley (talk) 23:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

IP-block while traveling

Orologio blu.svg
This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

CFCF (block log โ€ข active blocks โ€ข global blocks โ€ข autoblocks โ€ข contribs โ€ข deleted contribs โ€ข abuse filter log โ€ข creation log โ€ข change block settings โ€ข unblock โ€ข checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #17347 was submitted on Jan 19, 2017 14:27:47. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 14:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Just Chilling: โ€” how can I reach you with details about my IP that I don't want made public? I can only edit my userpage. Carl Fredrik ๐Ÿ’Œ ๐Ÿ“ง 15:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Orologio blu.svg
This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

CFCF (block log โ€ข active blocks โ€ข global blocks โ€ข autoblocks โ€ข contribs โ€ข deleted contribs โ€ข abuse filter log โ€ข creation log โ€ข change block settings โ€ข unblock โ€ข checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #17351 was submitted on Jan 19, 2017 15:37:55. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 15:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, please submit a fresh UTRS appeal, with your IP address and ideally a copy of the block notice, and I'll pick it up. Just Chilling (talk) 15:41, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, just did. Carl Fredrik ๐Ÿ’Œ ๐Ÿ“ง 15:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Move reverted.

Your move of Organ has been reverted. Please do not ever move an existing longstanding disambiguation page without consensus obtained at Wikipedia:Requested moves. bd2412 T 16:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

There is and was considerable discussion on the talk page following the revelation that one page saw an order magnitude more views than the other. Moved do not need to be requested unless controversial, restoring seems to be a waste of time as it will be reinstated soon. Carl Fredrik ๐Ÿ’Œ ๐Ÿ“ง 16:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Noncontroversial moves are generally those to fix typos and similar clear errors in titles. Moving longstanding disambiguation pages will always be controversial. bd2412 T 16:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Trump manual archiving

You archived a lot of stuff that has not been closed. I don't know how much pushback you'll get, but that's certainly not what the consensus is. ―Mandruss  14:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I guess it depends on how you interpret "closed". I've tried being very careful, only archiving things that won't reasonably be brought back, though of course considering how much discussion there is something important may have slipped through. Being involved with other articles with this insane degree of discussion, I've notived that once the talk-page hits the ~300kb mark discussion gets worse because there is incredible lag (even on modern computers), and multiple discussions of the same thing occur. I hope no-one feels I've overstepped, I'm doing this to make sure we can have as good a discussion as possible โ€” and I think more people ought to do it as well (for example. any answered edit request without further discussion should be considered closed). Carl Fredrik ๐Ÿ’Œ ๐Ÿ“ง 14:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

You also archived some stuff that had been closed for less than 24 hours. ―Mandruss  14:40, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Concerning those they were only things that have no chance of being resurrected, if you feel differently feel free to restore. I will be more careful with the the exact timing before I do anything more. Carl Fredrik ๐Ÿ’Œ ๐Ÿ“ง 14:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Well I guess you're just more bold than I am. I'm willing to sit back and see how others feel, but I wouldn't trust my own judgment to vary from the letter of the established consensus. ―Mandruss  15:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
My view on any Talk:Donald Trump performance issues is the same as the prevailing view on Donald Trump performance issues. It's a high-profile, high-activity article, and some performance issues are to be expected until computers become fast enough to fully accommodate such articles (which they will, sooner than later). ―Mandruss  15:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I will keep the archiving on the down-low from now on, but the issue is much more with MediaWiki-software which doesn't render large pages well โ€” they lag on any hardware. Add that to the fact that many users use WikEd, which is frankly horribly optimized and you will get issues no matter what. Some performance drop is to be expected, but once those pages hit 450k (which it was before I archived) you get editors who can't even load the page. Carl Fredrik ๐Ÿ’Œ ๐Ÿ“ง 15:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
In that case I think we could explore the possibility of somehow splitting the talk page. Not ideal for obvious reasons, but I think better than aggressive archiving. ―Mandruss  16:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Maybe, we'll see how long this level of activity keeps up. Hopefully it will die down a bit and the page can decrease in size once the major Rfcs are over. If that doesn't help then we might have to consider splitting the talk page, yes. Carl Fredrik ๐Ÿ’Œ ๐Ÿ“ง 16:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Are you aware of any precedent? ―Mandruss  16:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Not in article space, however the Village pump used to be a single forum. However this is an exceptional case, and there are clear reasons why we can't have a massive page like that (at least with the current software) โ€” so if need be we just need to get consensus and see. There is currently no way to tell if the inauguration will be the peak of editing or if it will increase following some action by Trump. What is clear is that the current level of activity is entirely unsustainable in the long term. Carl Fredrik ๐Ÿ’Œ ๐Ÿ“ง 16:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm taking all bets that the level of activity will subside significantly prior to Trump's exit from the office, whether that's 8 years, 4 years, or 2 years. ―Mandruss  16:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #244

See this discussion ?

Re: See this discussion. Sorry what discussion? I know a couple of editors are trying at present to tidy up a lot of 'burqa/variant' articles, and it seemed valid that they should be at least aware of this one. Please 'name' if replying here Pincrete (talk) 17:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely, but there was a very fast consensus that any unique garments shouldn't be merged. Feel free to make them aware of the article, but as a unique concept it should remain an independent article. Carl Fredrik ๐Ÿ’Œ ๐Ÿ“ง 18:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
P.S. I see I made a typo in the edit summary. It should say: "See the discussion" โ€” to which I'm referring to the one at Talk:Hijab_by_country#merge_proposal. If you find it difficult to navigate between the different articles I would propose a sidebar. Carl Fredrik ๐Ÿ’Œ ๐Ÿ“ง 18:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Hmmmmm??? It was precisely because it was unclear whether this WAS an distinct garment (as opposed to a local variant with a local name), that I thought the merge proposal valid. But as you suggest, I will make sure those trying at present to 'tidy' the whole topic area, are aware of the Paranja. I notice you already mentioned it on the talk page there, but will highlight it a bit more. My involvement is/was largely due to an RfC about some fairly blatant coatracking on 'Hijab by country' (the European section of which is largely about proposed/actual Burqa bans). I don't envy the brave souls trying to turn the whole area into a coherent whole! Pincrete (talk) 19:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-04

20:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Timeline of protests during Donald Trump's presidency merger discussion

As an FYI I restored the merger tags you removed from the two articles. The discussion has gone in a direction opposite what I originally proposed, but there has also been an attempt to A10 one of the articles and further discussion needs to happen as to if part of the main protest article should be split off, what parts should be moved if so, etc. I really don't think removing the tags per SNOW was appropriate after less than 24 hours and only one uninvolved editor commenting, and I've reverted per WP:BRD. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


Hi CFCF. I believe you're using this tool within policy and to constructive effect, but I wonder if you realize that with your many OneClicks at Talk:Mehmet Oz just now, you've filled an entire screen on my watchlist. If several pages I watched got that treatment, my watchlist would become totally useless. It's a handy tool, but I question whether it should be used on pages where it will need to generate so many edits in short succession, and I thought I'd ask your opinion before raising the matter somewhere centrally (e.g., Village Pump). RivertorchFIREWATER 12:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I was being lazy and didn't want to copy all the info, but you're right that it has negative effects on those who enable "show all revisions" on the watchlist. At first I had intended to only archive a few items before realizing that most of the discussion was older than 5 years and needed archiving. I'll keep this in mind and copy next time instead. Carl Fredrik ๐Ÿ’Œ ๐Ÿ“ง 12:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Face-smile.svg OK, thanks! RivertorchFIREWATER 13:19, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump article

I came here to warn you about the discretionary sanctions, but I see you have already been warned about them: [2] So you are already aware that "You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article, must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article, and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page." You should have known better than to restore "and fascism" after I had challenged it by reversion. That was a violation of the DS.

"Subject to discretionary sanctions" means that any administrator, at their own discretion and without warning, can impose sanctions, such as a block or topic ban, on someone who violates these special restrictions. I will not be doing anything myself because I don't take admin actions at this article; I am WP:INVOLVED. But many other admins watch this article and do take action as appropriate. You could save yourself from possible sanctions if you immediately self-revert your re-addition of the phrase. --MelanieN (talk) 16:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

January 2017

Information icon Hello, I'm KylieTastic. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Navel have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. KylieTastic (talk) 23:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC) :See User_talk:KylieTastic#What_are_you_doing.3F. Carl Fredrik ๐Ÿ’Œ ๐Ÿ“ง 23:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #245