User talk:CFCF/Archive 26

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Tech News: 2017-05

18:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Supplements and complementary and alternative medicine listed at Redirects for discussion

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Supplements and complementary and alternative medicine. Since you had some involvement with the Supplements and complementary and alternative medicine redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 09:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Closing discussions

You were involved in the discussion previously. As you know, involved editors should not close discussions. You may request a close. See WP:CLOSE. Between the two, it's odd that you'd leave the stale discussion open and close the active one. I've corrected that. James J. Lambden (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Was not aware of that — thank you for correcting my mistake. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 18:03, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 February 2017

Tech News: 2017-06

19:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #246

This Month in GLAM: January 2017

This month in GLAM logo.png




Headlines
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 18:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Steele dossier.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Steele dossier.png. 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:56, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-07

18:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #247

Wikidata weekly summary #248

Tech News: 2017-08

19:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Steele dossier.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Steele dossier.png. 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Unblocked

I've unblocked per my comment at AE. Not sure you won't be re-blocked per the arbitration enforcement rules, but I hope not. Happy editing. Bishonen | talk 21:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC).

Thank you Bishonen — I hope we can leave this incident behind us. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 21:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Fine work by several people. Now, Carl, please tread more carefully, eh? As it goes, I completely disagree with your edit, and would have done so even if similar edits had not been reverted. Even the mango Musolini gets the protection of WP:BLP, and it's best to leave contentious matters to an RfC ad let some poor bugger with a mop close it. Guy (Help!) 23:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

February 2017

To enforce an arbitration decision and for your reinstatement of a challenged edit without consensus, in violation of the page restrictions currently in effect on the page Donald Trump–Russia dossier, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

(This is a joke - I know this user)
I guess Trump was right about the wildness and chaos from Sweden. See you back tomorrow. I hope you only enjoy your day. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

{{unblock}}

  • I have taken this to AE for review. Guy (Help!) 18:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you JzG, I have made some minor edits. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 18:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
The most common way to appeal an AE block is for the user to fill out the {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}} template here on their talk page and then someone will copy it over to AE for them. EdJohnston (talk) 18:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
==Arbitration enforcement action appeal by CFCF==
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user
CFCF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 19:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Sanction being appealed
24 hour block, no discussion — see block notice: [19]
Administrator imposing the sanction
Coffee (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator
Ping: Coffee Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 19:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by CFCF

The sanctioned edit was performed in the faith that it was both uncontroversial and in line with the current consensus. It was also performed several days ago, and the action taken against me occurring now is quite far detached from my edit and acts in my view to be WP:PUNITIVE. I realize that this may on certain occasions be appropriate, but the idea that I was acting out of line did not occur to me at the moment as I considered the edit to be justified by consensus. The ongoing discussion on the talk page was not concluded but weighted towards inclusion as per my reading. Judged together with: a discussion consisting of a mix of voting; with non-voting discussion preceding this: and some users who had engaging only in one of the two — it may have been rash for me to conclude that I could so quickly determine consensus. I admit that it may have been wrong in my interpretation, but do not believe this should have incurred sanction. I may also have been rash to conclude that since the image was present for a longer period before being removed, that would fall under the ordinarily interpretation of meaning it was less than controversial. Judging these together I consider I was acting in good faith when I believed my edit would not violate any sanctions.

I realize that my actions can be interpreted as defying consensus, even though this was not my intent. However, the change was neither contested when it was made or in the period preceding this block, which I believe acts in my favor. No comments addressing me or that I was made aware of through a ping or similar were made. Any editor could have repeated the removal or commented with a differing interpretation of the consensus in a way that informed me. To me the block seems overly harsh, considering neither prior warning nor so much as a comment was directed towards me. Had anyone suggested I was acting incorrectly — the situation would have been very different and I would have attempted to rectify it immediately by self-reverting.

These may be some of our most contentious articles, but I did not act believing I was in defiance of rules, policies or other regulations as set by ArbCom — and would very much like to resume editing as per usual. I believe this type of block is harmful in part because it strongly discourages me (or others) from working in controversial subject areas if such risks persist — and these areas need quite a few eyes. Since I consider editing Wikipedia to be very important to me I am especially careful to avoid risks, and believe this goes for many of us — and this impacts which concepts I feel I can engage in. I hope you accept my sincere apology and regret and hope you would reconsider this block so that I can resume using one of my rarer free evenings to edit. Please also rest assured this has been taken as a strong warning and I will act more carefully in the future. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 19:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Coffee

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by CFCF

Result of the appeal by CFCF

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

Appeal copied to AE

...by me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC) Thank you, Beyond My Ken, closing this section here.

Note I did not sign the appeal prior to your copy, I do not know if this matters at all. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 19:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
This is "a fair use image", it adds little to the subject. Moreover, there is no consensus for inclusion as should be obvious here. You probably did not realize what kind of trouble this is going to be. I would advise you to withdraw this AE appeal, given that the block is only 24 hours. My very best wishes (talk) 20:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
We can disagree on the specifics of interpreting consensus and of whether it adds to the subject, as I stated above. However I remain steadfast in stating that I acted in good faith and that the block was overly harsh — especially as it was not preceded by any warning and came 2 days after the disputed action took place. If there is insufficient time to review the block before it runs out I still see reason to review the action in order to judge if it was appropriate. Why do you suggest I withdraw the appeal in face of that My very best wishes? Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 20:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC) 
I agree that block was too harsh (a warning with explanation would be enough). But I simply think your request is not going anywhere, given the circumstances and opinions of admins around. So it would be best to withdraw and save some time. But, OK, please keep it if you think this will help you to achieve something. Just remember, this is not a place for justice, but merely an educational resource/website. As about the Log, no, this article was included in the Log, and if you insist that you should be included in the Log, someone will probably do it. My very best wishes (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I would also like to add that I find no reference to the sanction in question as applied in this case at the link provided: Wikipedia:ARBAPDS. Nor can I find any log of the current action as relates to American politics at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/Log, and there is no accompanying prior discussion or request for arbitration enforment. As such there are several faults in the block which I will appeal to have it entirely rescinded — which I understand must not pass through arbcom. Whether this happens within the 24 hours or not is of no issue, these misses are not mere formalities, but frankly sufficient to rescind the block immediately. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 21:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

You were right. One never knows what these guys are going to decide. Happy editing! My very best wishes (talk) 01:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Removal of review

The removal of the review here was a mistake on my part. I misread the study. Sorry about the confusion.Jmg873 (talk) 16:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Libraries Without Borders listed at Redirects for discussion

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Libraries Without Borders. Since you had some involvement with the Libraries Without Borders redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. TigraanClick here to contact me 16:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Brilliant Idea Barnstar Hires.png The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
Thank you for creating Template:Misinformation.

This template Template:Misinformation ties together key topics on an important issue to our society and helps readers and editors access and improve these topics and see why they are connected. Sagecandor (talk) 19:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #249

Tech News: 2017-09

19:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2017

Kåeff?

If it's not too personal, Carl Fredrik, I've been wondering what you call yourself in daily life. I have an uncle named Carl Fredrik, and he's always familiarly known as Kåeff. Phonetically speaking, that is. It's spelled "CF". :-D Names and nicknames are fascinating to me. When I was a child and innocent of spellings, I thought Kåeff was an ordinary, regular man's name, that anybody might be called, just as well as Åke or Lars. Bishonen | talk 22:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC).

I'd assume that from my account name you could guess :p. "CF" is my nickname, and people normally call me that, (pronounced "see-eff", like a longer version of the e in "met" / "seː-ef") or my full name, Carl Fredrik (which I actually recorded for fun at File:Carl_Fredrik_pronunciation.ogg – ignore the last-name). Most English speakers call me Carl, which is also fine. I'm assuming your uncle's name was actually "Karl-Fredrik" (mine is a rare spelling, especially among those who are over 50), which makes it more reasonable to call him KF, or if you pronounce the letters K & F : "Kåeff" ("koː-ef"). Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 02:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
No, it wasn't. Your spelling may be rare, but I wrote it because it's also my uncle's spelling. It's the "C" spelling that makes the "Kåeff" so intriguing. And, as I said, his Kåeff is spelled CF. I was wondering if the same oddness had happened to you. But I guess these are mysteries. May I call you Kalle? Bishonen | talk 13:16, 4 March 2017 (UTC).
Sure, I'm called Calle from time to time. However you may want to spell it with a "C" to avoid confusion. Haven't heard of anyone being called "Kåeff" who spells it with a C, but I guess you learn something new every day. It's interesting because the C is pronounced as a [k], while the letter "C" is pronounced ~"See". The letter K is prononunced "Kå", but I guess anyone is free to have an idiosyncratically pronounced/spelled nickname :). Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 14:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #250

Tech News: 2017-10

23:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Merger of quackery and alt med

please open the discussion so that a) the links at "Discuss" go somewhere and b) so i can understand why you want to do this. thx Jytdog (talk) 00:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Golden shower-gate listed at Redirects for discussion

Information.svg

I have asked for a discussion to address the redirect Golden shower-gate and several related redirects. Since you had some involvement with these redirects, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. --MelanieN (talk) 20:24, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Portal:Anatomy/Opentask

A tag has been placed on Portal:Anatomy/Opentask requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section P1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a portal which would be subject to speedy deletion if it were an article.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Tom (LT) (talk) 00:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Portal:Anatomy/box-footer

A tag has been placed on Portal:Anatomy/box-footer requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section P1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a portal which would be subject to speedy deletion if it were an article.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Tom (LT) (talk) 00:44, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Portal:Anatomy/Selected biography/3

A tag has been placed on Portal:Anatomy/Selected biography/3 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section P1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a portal which would be subject to speedy deletion if it were an article.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Tom (LT) (talk) 23:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: March 2019

This Month in GLAM logo 2018.png




Headlines
  • Albania report: WikiFilmat SQ - new articles about the Albanian movie industry!
  • Armenia report: Art+Feminism+GLAM, Collaboration with Hovhannes Toumanian museum
  • Australia report: Art+Feminism 2019 in Australia
  • Brazil report: The GLAM at USP Museum of Veterinary Anatomy: a history of learnings and improvements
  • Colombia report: Moving GLAM institutions inside and outside Colombia
  • Czech Republic report: Edit-a-thon Prachatice
  • France report: Wiki day at the Institut national d'histoire de l'art; Age of wiki at the Musée Saint-Raymond
  • India report: Gujarat Vishw Kosh Trust content donation to Wikimedia
  • Italy report: Italian librarians in Milan
  • Macedonia report: WikiLeague: Edit-a-thon on German Literature
  • Netherlands report: WikiconNL, International Womens Day and working together with Amnesty, Field study Dutch Libraries and Wikimedia
  • Serbia report: Spring residences and a wiki competition
  • Sweden report: UNESCO; Working life museums; Swedish Performing Arts Agency shares historic music; Upload of glass plates photographs
  • UK report: Wiki-people and Wiki-museum-data
  • USA report: Women's History Month and The Met has two Wikimedians in the house
  • Wikidata report: Go Siobhan!
  • WMF GLAM report: Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons; Bengali Wikisource case study
  • Calendar: April's GLAM events
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 20:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jönköping University, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages John Elliott and Sven Nilsson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)