User talk:CFCF/Archive 6

Revert of Removals without consensus
Two of your three recent reverts are to re-include information for which there is no consensus to include. The "redirect to cigarette smoke tag" and the propylene oxide issue. I would appreciate it if you would self revert and seek consensus per policy SPACKlick (talk) 19:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Reversion of no consesnsus inclusion
Please see WP:NOCON for discussions lacking consensus on additions, undo your tendentious revert and make a reasoned argument in the discussion if there is any reason to include the hatnote. SPACKlick (talk) 17:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Domestic violence against men. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. GregJackP   Boomer!   13:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozzie10aaaa (talk • contribs) 19:20, 22 July 2015‎

WikiProject Anatomy Newsletter #4
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Neurocranium template
Hi, CFCF - am trying to make changes following page moves, to the neurocranium template - but it just redirects to cranium template..?? Thanks --Iztwoz (talk) 09:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ! Rather, the cranium template redirects to the neurocranium template. There isn't really a proper cranium template, and I moved it because I wasn't able to delete it. A cranium template should include both neuro- and viscerocranium, but there isn't even a Template:Viscerocranium. All this was lost in my endless todo-list and I would create a cranium template later on. Could you enlighten me in what you want done and maybe I can help you better? -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 10:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * When you try to edit the neurocranium template it takes you to cranium template redirect page. The three groupings of Squama need to be changed to Squamous parts.--Iztwoz (talk) 10:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Have just looked and the page for viscerocranium is entered as Facial skeleton for which there is a template. Maybe this could be added to Cranium template ? --Iztwoz (talk) 10:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

✅! I'll try and find time to fix the templates. I think if we add both viscerocranium and neurocranium in full to the template it'll be too large, so I'll try to make a slightly smaller overbearing template. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 12:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Just to say the headings need to be singular Squamous part. cheers --Iztwoz (talk) 22:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Suggestions?
Per your response, what are your suggestions for what I should add? I'm no expert; just have an interest in neuroanatomy and Wikipedia. You suggested Cranial nerves' "set" of articles, but that sounds rather broad, since there are 12 (and many branches). Is there any particular/more specific area you suggest I begin? Bush6984 (talk) 22:05, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey, sorry for the late reply! Some of the easier nerves to work on might be the Hypoglossal nerve or the Abducens nerve. Both those articles are in dire need of expansion, and the nerves have pretty limited functions, so if you have an anatomy book you could work rewriting some of that text. Otherwise there is a great source at that is CC-BY (so copying text is allowed as long as you properly attribute it). If you feel these articles are a little to difficult there are many others, so just message me here and I can try to find something else that needs work. If you find any review articles on pubmed you don't have access to just send me an e-mail and I'll see what I can do. Best, --  CFCF  🍌 (email) 09:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Tom Catena
Thanks for expanding Tom Catena, but did you write this sentence correctly? It does not make sense to me: "While not expressively forbidden, since at least 2012 relief is in practice permitted and volunteers are not allowed into the region." 76.11.104.7 (talk) 17:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out, I fixed it. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 17:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 July 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Tom Catena
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Medical ultrasound, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tissue. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:06, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Re: Revert
I was actually filing a ANI report for a second opinion here when I got your message (I've screwed these things up before, so if I have any doubts about an action taken a second opinion is almost always the first thing I ask for). I assumed that no discussion = no consensus, but I am willing to drop to the protection and find someone to revert (I'm at my 3 :) if that better serves the interest of the project. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * . Upon removing the protection I will then file a move discussion for the page. Normally I find these discussions to be a waste of time as what will likely happen is noone will reply for a month and then the page will be moved anyway. Thanks for your reply. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 09:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Its lifted. My apologies, I caught this on RC patrol and since it was a massive removal of text I assumed the worst. That is the fundamental problem of RC patrolling: it usually requires a leap without a long look. I apologize for any inconvenience, having had moment to catch my breath and actually look into this I see that this was not a drive by deletion or a vandal only account. The only problems here were a lack of play call on your part and over-eagerness to use my trigger finger on this end. That having been said, this is still an error on my part. If your feel the need to report this (or trout me) then I understand and will support your decision; after all, administrators be thou for the editors, and when the power is abused the abusing party must be held accountable. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I similarly overreacted, but the lack of any type of description and a near instant revert makes one wary. Lets hope that if our paths cross again it will be on friendlier terms. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 09:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Revert of Removals without consensus
Two of your three recent reverts are to re-include information for which there is no consensus to include. The "redirect to cigarette smoke tag" and the propylene oxide issue. I would appreciate it if you would self revert and seek consensus per policy SPACKlick (talk) 19:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Electronic cigarette. Thank you. SPACKlick (talk) 20:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Today's articles for improvement weekly vote



 * Hello CFCF:


 * This week's voting for TAFI's upcoming weekly collaborations has begun at Week 31 of 2015. Thanks for participating!

Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 09:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

CFCF..................hi
I was just wondering if we should give editors more time to answer at wikiproject med, I noticed you archived a few post  ?..--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:56, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 July 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Today's articles for improvement weekly vote



 * Hello CFCF:


 * This week's voting for TAFI's upcoming weekly collaborations has begun at Week 32 of 2015. Thanks for participating!

Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 12:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 12
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 12, May-June 2015 by, , ,

 Read the full newsletter The Interior 15:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * New donations - Taylor & Francis, Science, and three new French-language resources
 * Expansion into new languages, including French, Finnish, Turkish, and Farsi
 * Spotlight: New partners for the Visiting Scholar program
 * American Library Association Annual meeting in San Francisco

The Signpost: 15 July 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fasciolosis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Toxaemia. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:59, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Today's articles for improvement – discussion about changing project processes



 * Hello :
 * A discussion is occurring at Change project processes regarding potential changes to the Today's articles for improvement Wikiproject. Your input is welcomed at the discussion.

Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 11:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

The Pirate Bay
You might like to rethink this edit. The article was updated a few days ago after the thepiratebay.am was put on hold. As for "I'm sorry but consensus seems pretty clear" in your edit summary, I don't see consensus either way. That doesn't preclude listing all of the domains, it was just something I thought needed addressing. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 00:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Responding on talk page. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 00:04, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be best if you have you take a break from editing The Pirate Bay. You've been edit-warring for over a month, ignoring both the talk page and ELN discussions during that time. Alternatively, I ask you to revert to the state you found the article in before you started edit-warring, and try to get some consensus for something different. --Ronz (talk) 15:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * , noted. I will step aside, leaving the question up to the community to decide. I realize I feel strongly for the notion of WP:NOTCENSORED here in addition to considering it WP:OR to arbitrarily chose one link to display, but having put my points across I will respect any community decision as long as it has been discussed respecting WP:BRD. Right now it seems to still be very controversial. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 15:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. You have a really good point, and I'd like to see more discussion about it. As I pointed out, the discussions focused on the legal aspects of linking any of the sites, and so didn't address the other issues well if at all. --Ronz (talk) 15:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

It might be best not to keep claiming that there was long standing consensus. Consensus can change, often because prior consensus did not take relevant policies/guidelines into consideration. Further, there's certainly no consensus since June. --Ronz (talk) 01:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

And you're back to edit-warring again. At this point, I'm sorry I didn't file a edit-warring complaint about you earlier. Can you please stop? It's pretty clear at this point that the links stay out, and it's doubtful there will be consensus to include even one given what's happened. --Ronz (talk) 00:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 July 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Question: why the revert on "Phantom Limb"?
Greetings CFCF! I noticed you reverted my recent edit to Phantom limb. Can you explain what you disagree with in my edit? I can see how the paragraph in question seemed contradictory before, but the way I've rephrased it would seem to rectify it. What are your thoughts on the issue? Best wishes, Tigercompanion25 (talk) 23:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * First of all it is a primary source (see WP:MEDRS), and secondly you don't seem to grasp the subject matter. The nervous system includes the brain. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 23:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, understood. No need to make it personal ("you don't seem to grasp the subject matter"). You can just state your piece on the edit without conjecturing about me. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 23:46, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 26 July
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Adaptogen page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=673088717 your edit] caused a cite error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F673088717%7CAdaptogen%5D%5D Ask for help])

Disruptive Activity
From: User talk:Jeffmcneill "Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Paracetamol, you may be blocked from editing. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 04:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC)"


 * Yeah, so I add two interesting and important new, relevant references to an article which indicates potential harm to pregnant women on the Paracetamol page. These are removed because you guys don't like primary sources? This is ridiculous and frankly an extreme case of what is wrong with Wikipedia. My wife is pregnant. I for sure want to know about potential harm of this drug. I would think as a medical professional that you would be more inspired by the "first do no harm" idea. The fact that you Wikipedia jerks are so focused on having only sources from a narrow range of whatever it takes for a given article is so frustrating. I've continued to run into this kind of thing. You would think that academic journals have taken over Wikipedia. The idea that I have actually improved the article with my additions, and that others can improve it further, has completely escaped much of the Wikipedia culture these days. Wikipedia has simply forgotten the idea that this is collaboratively edited, rather than having a coterie of people who simply reject all edits if they do not thread the eye of the needle through the dozens of acronym style guides. You guys are disgusting, really. You are standing on the shoulders of millions of edits and now you reject the very thing that got you to where you are, namely lots of collaboratively edited small improvements. Now any change has to go through hurdles that would never have created Wikipedia in the first place. The fact that you have excluded something that is evidence of significant danger to pregnant women based on this culture of exclusiveness should trouble you deeply. --Jeffmcneill (talk) 06:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that I've upset you, but the fact is we get hundreds upon hundreds of poor quality changes every day. That is why we've written WP:MEDRS which I pointed to when I reverted you. There is also an excellent essay on why we adhere so strongly to it at WP:WHYMEDRS. The fact is that many primary studies are either performed on mice or on very small populations so that their results can't be transferred into clinical practise. MEDRS is no catch all, but it helps us and makes patrolling many articles and removing citations from the daily mail easier. I would also like to point out that we are working on getting these types of warnings into our articles automatically, for example by having FDA warnings automatically added.


 * I understand it may feel as if you're being reverted by a faceless mass, but I assure you if you had simply taken up the discussion it would have been far more likely to be productive. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 11:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This isn't about my feelings, it is about your behavior. You revert me with no reason, then start quoting this bureaucratic nonsense, then threaten me with banning due to my disruptive editing. This is why Wikipedia is dying, cannibalizing its editors and edits in a Kafkaesque farce. Congratulations, I'm sure your no-doubt proper and uplifting ZYZZYXRD will be cited upon its demise. You may want to try and comprehend your own actions, and not my feelings. See . --Jeffmcneill (talk) 11:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It is simpler just to follow the community norms for medicine and use secondary sources User:Jeffmcneill. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 13:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015
Your recent editing history at The Pirate Bay shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.''You reverted three times on an article just coming off full protection. This is unacceptable.'' Neil N  talk to me 03:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Electronic cigarette
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests/Case 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 in 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,— S Marshall T/C 17:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Neurocranium template
Hi, CFCF - am trying to make changes following page moves, to the neurocranium template - but it just redirects to cranium template..?? Thanks --Iztwoz (talk) 09:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ! Rather, the cranium template redirects to the neurocranium template. There isn't really a proper cranium template, and I moved it because I wasn't able to delete it. A cranium template should include both neuro- and viscerocranium, but there isn't even a Template:Viscerocranium. All this was lost in my endless todo-list and I would create a cranium template later on. Could you enlighten me in what you want done and maybe I can help you better? -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 10:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * When you try to edit the neurocranium template it takes you to cranium template redirect page. The three groupings of Squama need to be changed to Squamous parts.--Iztwoz (talk) 10:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Have just looked and the page for viscerocranium is entered as Facial skeleton for which there is a template. Maybe this could be added to Cranium template ? --Iztwoz (talk) 10:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

✅! I'll try and find time to fix the templates. I think if we add both viscerocranium and neurocranium in full to the template it'll be too large, so I'll try to make a slightly smaller overbearing template. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 12:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Just to say the headings need to be singular Squamous part. cheers --Iztwoz (talk) 22:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)