User talk:CFCF/Archive 8

Disruptive editing, please stop
Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). Your edits have or will be reverted or removed. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. The consensus reading said, yes, the change was warranted. I am restoring it. If you continue having a problem with the reading, you might consider going about it a different way. Disruptively challenging a consensus reading when a vote didn't go your way, isn't the smartest idea. LesVegas (talk) 19:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LesVegas (talk • contribs) 22:03, October 26, 2015‎ (UTC)
 * – please sign your posts. CFCF   💌 📧 22:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Acupuncture source
Hi CFCF -- there's pretty wide consensus that the version to which you reverted reflects a misreading of the source. Please join the Talk:Acupuncture and share your reasoning. Thanks. --Middle 8 (t • c &#124; privacy • COI) 18:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No, that is not true. There is pretty much one editor on the opposing side. CFCF   💌 📧 18:45, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Am I the "one editor"? Or was it ImperfectlyInformed, or Anthonycole, or WhatamIdoing? Or was it Middle8, LesVegas, or A1candidate? Herbxue (talk) 06:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

"Uninvolved"
The discussion at acupuncture is now closed, but you asked about my assertion regarding opinions expressed by uninvolved editors. Here is the most recent version I referred to but if you have been following this article for any length of time you have seen similar gripes in the past. To be fair, there have also been passers-by who felt that even mentioning that acupuncture EXISTS gives it too much credit. Still, you assuming that my mention of "uninvolved editors" meant "acupuncture proponents" was nonsensical. Herbxue (talk) 06:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration proposed decision posted
Hi CFCF, in the open Editor conduct in e-cigs articles arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 13:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

AN/I discussion - WP:GAMING at WP:MEDRS
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents

Arbitration proposed decision posted
A proposed decision has been posted in the Editor conduct in e-cigs articles arbitration case, which you are listed as a party to. Comments are welcome at the proposed decision talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

E-cigs case closed
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:


 * 1) General Sanctions for the Electronic Cigarette topic area are rescinded. In its place, standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for the Electronic Cigarette topic area, broadly construed.
 * 2) Discretionary Sanctions are explicitly extended for the Electronic Cigarettes topic area. Specifically, single purpose accounts may be topic banned or blocked (indefinite or otherwise), if in the view of an uninvolved administrator, they are being disruptive in the topic area.
 * 3) Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to monitor the articles covered by discretionary sanctions in this case to ensure compliance. To assist in this, administrators are reminded that:
 * 4) Accounts with a clear shared agenda may be blocked if they violate the sockpuppetry policy or other applicable policy;
 * 5) Accounts whose primary purpose is disruption or making personal attacks may be blocked indefinitely;
 * 6) Discretionary sanctions permit full and semi-page protections, including use of pending changes where warranted, and – once an editor has become aware of sanctions for the topic – any other appropriate remedy may be issued without further warning. The Arbitration Committee thanks those administrators who have been helping to enforce the community general sanctions, and thanks, once again, in advance those who help enforce the remedies adopted in this case.
 * 7) is warned that continuing to engage in a pattern of disruption to Wikipedia will result in further sanctions.
 * 8) is restricted to one revert per article per every 72 hour period in the Electronic Cigarette topic area, broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee,  Mini  apolis  21:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Outcome of AE case
CFCF

Please note that the AE case against you closed as follows: ''CFCF is formally warned that any further instances of reverting other users enacting a consensus will result in sanctions. They are reminded that discussion not reverting is the correct way to resolve a dispute. They should note that any edit that undoes another user's edit is a revert and are reminded that 1RR or not, undoing a consensus change is clear disruption.''

For the avoidance of doubt, further disruptive behaviour will result in sanctions.

Spartaz Humbug! 08:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Your edit on Sweden
Hello. The Swedish phrase "i tiden", as in "För Sverige - i tiden", has nothing to do with "throughout time" or "through time", but implies being modern, being "in" with the current times, thus making the previous translation much better than yours. So please stop changing it. "För Sverige - i tiden" was chosen as motto by Carl XVI Gustaf to imply that he would be a modern king, not an oldfashioned one, and that's the meaning that the translation should confer. (FYI I'm bilingual by birth, having one Swedish and one English parent, and there are several other editors here on en-WP who are fluent in both languages, so the translations here are usually correct...). Thank you. Thomas.W talk 12:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * —I've already responded on the talk page of the article, and have sourced the motto to the official translation. Also translation is not only about being "correct", but about transferring the gist of a text into another language—which being "With the Times" doesn't really do. It sounds far too much like a middle-aged man trying to be "hip with the kids"—but then again the king is a middle-aged man, so I won't argue with it seeing as it's officially sourced now. CFCF   💌 📧 12:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * He chose the motto when he became king in 1973, at the age of 27, and so has nothing to do with a middle-aged man trying to be "hip with the kids"... Thomas.W talk 10:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * He didn't chose the English translation at 27, . CFCF   💌 📧 11:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You obviously still don't understand that your translation of "För Sverige - i tiden" is totally and utterly wrong, not only because of lacking skills in English but also because you don't seem to understand what "i tiden" meant/implied during the 1970s, when the motto was chosen. Thomas.W talk 13:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * —There is no need to be rude, and I think at best we can agree to disagree. CFCF  💌 📧 13:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Clarification
Regarding this this reversion, I would have thought, "A, supported by B, released..." indicates a joint release. Don't you think so? StAnselm (talk) 23:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 6 August
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) 00:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Leonhard Euler page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=674830832 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%2F674830832%7CLeonhard Euler%5D%5D Ask for help])

A kitten for you!
A kitten for Your topic البواسير

أشرف فارس (talk) 05:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC) 

Thanks! -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 20:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

TAFI List of articles purge, part II



 * Hello CFCF:


 * A discussion is occurring at the TAFI talk page regarding the removal of entries from the project's List of articles page. Your input is welcome at the discussion.

Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 17:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 August 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Fruit preserves
Hi, why did you move this article to the singular version, fruit preserve? The proper name is the plural form, as in fruit preserves. Please move it back to its proper name. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 09:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it is not. Only specific set articles should be pluralized such as Cranial nerves. See Article titles, there is a section on plurals. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 09:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe your interpretation of the policy is incorrect, in this case this line from the exceptions section of naming conventions for plurals (WP:PLURAL) applies:

Articles on items such as scissors or fireworks are not located at awkward, unnatural titles like scissor or firework.


 * This is one of those examples quoted in the policy, so the proper title should be Fruit preserves. While it would seem that the singular would be proper, the singular version is almost never used because of the awkwardness of the singular - this is true in all major forms of English, including American, Australian, British and Canadian. You will find this true in commercial product naming, recipes and other examples.


 * A good example would be the following two sentences:
 * Fruit preserves are made from strawberries, apples or other fruits.
 * Fruit preserve is made from strawberry, apple or other fruit.


 * While both sentences are grammatically correct, the second is structurally awkward to a native English speaker. This probably because the second implies that you are preserving a single, individual fruit. When going through the process of food preservation in English, you utilize the plural of the fruit or vegetable you are preserving, ie I am preserving strawberries, and the resulting product would be strawberry preserves. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 09:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I can find many sources using the singular, and our article on fruit preserves uses the singular extensively. We seldom speak of a deli meat, but that has nothing to do with its title. You may choose to link however you wish, but the singular remains the proper title by all policies (it most certainly is not an uncountable noun – get a source that says so and I might be inclined to listen). -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 09:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * United States Department of Agriculture regulations on fruit preserves: United States Standards for Grades of Fruit Preserves - This is a defining document as to what constitutes fruit preserves in the United States. In it it you will only find a single instance of the singular. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 09:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In the same way that if you were to regulate tomatoes you would use the plural. The article name is still tomato. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 13:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * . Hi CFCF and . Fruit preserve sounds like a rangeland where fruits are kept, like an elk preserve. And fruits preserve sounds like a sanatorium for nuts. Glad to see it is still fruit preserves. I know section titles are always supposed to be plural even if they only contain one item. Cheers!  10:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 August 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello
Hi CFCF, i's newcomer Cityside189. I left a note on the Planned Parenthood article talk page regarding a good faith edit you made recently on the page. I didn't know if writing there would automatically notify you, so I thought it would be OK to leave a message here on your talk page. Cityside189 (talk) 17:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Your recent deletions to "Planned Parenthood"
  Multiple recent reversions to Planned Parenthood are verging upon an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than just undoing edits by other users when there is a disagreement. Consideration should be given by you, and by all users, to the inclusion of ALL opposing points of view on Wikipedia article subject matter and content, whether they happen to agree with that point of view or not. Be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
 * 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.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes, and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors (note: lack of consensus does NOT constitute a consensus). If needed, you can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard, or you can seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you do engage in edit warring, it may become necessary that you are blocked from editing.
 * --- Professor JR (talk) 16:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notice
-- slakr \ talk / 03:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 August 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Inna discography
Hi!

I see that you nominated the article 'Inna discography' for deletion. Well, it contains much information about her chart peaks and certifications throughout her seven years of career. You're right about some dubious links, but do not delete the article immediately(!!!!!!); let me know what poblems you found on Inna's discography page, so I can fix it for you!! I can explain you the things you discussed in "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inna discography": "LatINNA" is not the title of one of her albums: It is just the former name of her now-renamed full-length record INNA (The title was simply renamed from LatINNA to INNA). There is no album by her named "The Romantic Collection", it's just an unofficially collection of her tracks that premiered on an illegal website. And finally, the "Summer Days EP" was supposed to be released, but never was. Thus, most of the track released from it were included on Inna's actual album INNA. Have any questions?- Then simply ask me!

Cartoon network freak (talk) 18:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Five minutes to help make WikiProjects better
Hello!

First, on behalf of WikiProject X, thank you for trying out the WikiProject X pilot projects. I would like to get some anonymous feedback from you on your experience using the new WikiProject layout and tools. This way, we will know what we did right, and if we did something horribly wrong, we can try to fix it. This feedback won't be associated with your username, so please be completely honest. We are determined to improve the experience of Wikipedians, and your feedback helps us with that. (You are also welcome to leave non-anonymous feedback at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject X.)

Please complete the survey here. The survey has two parts: the first part asks for your username, while the second part contains the survey questions. These two parts are stored separately, so your username will not be associated with your feedback. There are only nine questions and it should not take very long to complete. Once you complete the survey I will leave a handwritten note on your talk page as a token of my appreciation.

Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Harej (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello! Just sending a reminder to complete the survey linked above. (This is the only reminder I'll send, I promise.) Let me know on my talk page if you have any questions. Thank you!!! Harej (talk) 22:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit waring in Sex differences
You did multiple mass edits without discussions while ignoring undecided discussions.

This is against WP policy.

You should discuss when you know your edits are not in consensus. Jazi Zilber (talk) 00:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't, the editor in question is permanently topic banned! His comments are irrelevant. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 00:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * 1) Topic banned does not mean you can vazndalise the page and make it your personal blog.
 * 2) I am now arguing with you. And you should enter a conversation, not monopolize and invent rules.
 * 3) It seems you are not too familiar with editing etiquette e.g. [] Jazi Zilber (talk) 00:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

You are completely misinterpreting what WP:VANDAL is about. I have removed unsourced low quality content, nothing more. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 00:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * You decide without discussion on the details what is "low quality" then revert and ignore any critique. You should detail your issues reasonably. Not edit war with me. Jazi Zilber (talk) 00:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I have, you can see the talk at Talk:Sex differences in psychology. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 00:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 September 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

asking your opinion
Hi CFCF, I thought would ask a question. I appreciate your gigantic contributions to Wikipedia and appreciate your overall approach. I know the article Planned Parenthood is frought with controversy and am less bold about making edits there. Having been around awhile, what's your advice for me about making the proposed edit about Sanger's conviction not being overturned? On the one hand it seems like the current article text is mistaken, and should be fixed even if the article is controversial. On the other hand, being a new user I'm hesitant to make an edit like this without a lot of consensus. I know you are busy and if you have time, I would appreciate talking with you. --Cityside189 (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * – First of all get reliable sources to back your proposed change. Then you just suggest it on the talk page. If your sources are of high quality it highly likely to be accepted by consensus. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 11:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Inna discography
I'd like to call your attention to WP:NACD where it says: "Participants, including participating administrators, should not reopen non-admin closures" Besides, the discussion has clearly reached consensus not to delete the article (discography). I suggest you revert your edits and restore my closure. Kraxler (talk) 18:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

It is also improper for a nominator to relist a discussion, relisting is a decision open only to uninvolved users. In this case, the discussion had in fact been relisted earlier today, but per WP:RELIST a "relisted discussion may be closed once consensus is determined without necessarily waiting a further seven days.". Consensus has been reached with the additional !vote cast after the relisting by JAaron. Kraxler (talk) 18:56, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I left a message about this at Administrators' noticeboard. Kraxler (talk) 22:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Fat embolism
CFCF lets do something constructive and work together on this article (or another), we can talk at the article talk page,...thank you...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:58, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I do not want to take this to ANI ( and are disruptive) or  Doc James  Doc James again, please take to talk page ,,,thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Unable to look into things as internet not good enough. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 12:50, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Template:Cleanup
Is Template:Cleanup working correctly? It isn't displaying on a lot of older pages (e.g. Centre for Environment Education) even though it is present when I look at the edit screen. RJFJR (talk) 15:42, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That's very odd. I made a minor tweak, and it still shows up when I add it to new pages? -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 15:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * - Rolled it back, don't know what caused the error, but I'll try to change the method of the tweak. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 15:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 September 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:59, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

A complaint about your edits has been filed at WP:AN3
Please see WP:AN3. A surprisingly large fraction of your recent edits are reverts. As a admin, I've reviewed the recent history of some of the articles named in the report. Though you do have some credibility when editing medical articles, you have engaged in what looks to be classic edit warring on articles like Pirate Bay and Paul Signac. There is an element of diplomacy that seems to be missing. Any response you can make to the concerns raised would be helpful. EdJohnston (talk) 04:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Responded. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 11:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * See the closure of the report at WP:AN3. The parties who have been reverting at Fat embolism and Hypocalcaemia are warned not to continue without a talk page consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 22:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Template:Cleanup edit
What is this intended to fix? Alakzi (talk) 11:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've been seeing quite a few articles with the red error message plastered at the top. This would add that no reason has been specified without being WP:POINTY and breaking the pages. Add to that that the  parameter is quite clumbsy and counterintuitive and I made a BOLD edit. It is possible a different method using   is preferable.--  CFCF  🍌 (email) 12:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It will simply not display a message, nor categorise the articles, unless reason is explicitly blank, i.e. iff the template is invoked as follows: . Alakzi (talk) 12:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem is that often it's added in the format or . Editors will at times tag the article and then leave–and because they do not anticipate it to work that way the error message sticks around. I realize this probably requires a discussion, but a preferable alternative is to have the error message like this:


 * -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 12:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That looks like a much better alternative. :-) I'd suggest to deprecate the two positional parameters, hire a bot to cough clean up the template's tranclusions, and update Twinkle accordingly. Alakzi (talk) 12:28, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks like the positional parameters have already been deprecated, actually, and that there's only one transclusion without cleanup after June 2012 (which is, presumably, when the parameter was introduced). I don't know if they're being fixed by humans or bots, but it doesn't look like this poses a significant problem. Alakzi (talk) 12:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, but I still think it would be beneficial for the template to be less WP:POINTY and I'll try to draft an example in the template sandbox and bring it to the WP:VP. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 12:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Image edit
Hi CFCF this is the link - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:914_Shoulder_Joint.jpg  cheers --Iztwoz (talk) 19:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Your edit
Stay off my page...Modernist (talk) 14:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Alpha-gal allergy issues
Hey,

I was just wondering what is wrong with this article re:MOS. Medical references I get, just...not sure how to improve it in that regard. Thanks for taking a look at it though! Appreciate it. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 13:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Your presentation about Ebola translations
Dear Carl, thank you again for your presentation about Ebola Translations in Mexico.

Next weekend I will be attending the WikiCon 2015 in Dresden, a conference similar to Wikimania, but aimed at the German speaking community of Germany, Austria and Switzerland. I am invited to talk about the Wikimania (program). My idea is to present your project, the Medical Translation Taskforce, as an example about what happens in the Wiki world and that it is worthwile to become active outside ones own language borders.

Could you send me your presentation (PowerPoint, PDF or Word or whatever) so that I can cut out some key figures to use for my presentation or just tell me where I can find it? I'll be asking James on his talk page as well.

Thanks again for your work, with best regards, --Gereon K. (talk) 07:07, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of List of The Pirate Bay proxies for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of The Pirate Bay proxies is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/List of The Pirate Bay proxies until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. - MrX 21:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 September 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:43, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 20 September
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) 00:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=681997436 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%2F681997436%7CPlanned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy%5D%5D Ask for help])

Edit summary question
I'm wondering about your edit summary: "removed names as per notability guidelines, also some of these aren't even mentioned in the artilcle". What policy are you referring to? -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Under WP:VICTIM:


 * also some other WP:BLP considerations, and the fact that these people aren't notable for their involvement. CFCF  💌 📧 10:22, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware that any of them had been formally charged with crimes, or that we were doing so. Did we do that? That could be a BLP matter, but that would still not affect their names being used, only how we frame that content.
 * Also, WP:N does not apply to article content, only to article creation. They don't have to be notable for anything, other than the source mentioning them. That's enough for mention. Some are even officers and thus key players. I noticed your edit(s) because removal of their names smacks of attempts to protect these people without any reason but an editor's judgment. We don't do that, except for unsourced negative content. I hope that wasn't the reason, because that would be editorial censorship, and thus an NPOV violation. Use of their names is not a BLP matter.
 * Am I missing something here? -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I had myself confused and linked a different page from the one I wanted. Anyway it is WP:AVOIDVICTIM, WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE and especially WP:BLPNAME – all of which are part of WP:BLP. These make it clear that we need strong secondary sources (not news) to cite names, and I think there is a clear line between citing what has been filmed in secret and potentially cut out of context and using public quotes from officials and shouldn't be controversial. CFCF  💌 📧 20:09, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah ha! Another learning moment! I'll check this out. Thanks so much. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Pro-life / anti-abortion wrecked the URL for a ref
Hi CFCF, I wanted you to be aware that I am reversing a change you made to terminology on Abortion and mental health because it impacted one of the URLs for a ref... the article's URL repeated the headline, "Allen, Samantha (July 1, 2015). "pro-lifers harass women after abortions". The Daily Beast. Retrieved 16 September 2015" and if this was changed to "anti-abortionrs harass women..." the URL becomes a dead link. Please be careful not to change the text of URLs, I suppose, even if it's something like "www.wrong_headed_ideas.com/use-whle-oil-lamps-all-night.htm" (supposing that whle oil is an improper word and misspelled). I guess if it was really bad we could do a bit.ly on it :) 146.23.3.250 (talk) 22:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing that, I didn't anticipate it would be in a URL and ran a simple replace all command. As for bit.ly, Wikipedia does not allow such redirect sites, so I guess I'll just have to be more careful next time.   Best,  CFCF   💌 📧 22:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:CFCF/sandbox/CNS
User:CFCF/sandbox/CNS, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:CFCF/sandbox/CNS and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:CFCF/sandbox/CNS during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 02:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nils Dardel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Den döende dandyn. 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) 13:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Herodotus
Can you be more specific about in what way the article Herodotus does not comply with the MOS? RJFJR (talk) 17:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 September 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi CFCF,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Sobo 1909 260.png is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on October 14, 2015. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2015-10-14. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I have reverted the changes to the blurb proper as POTD has its own style (one, an article the image is used in needs to be linked, and two, we don't use technical language without linking to a definition for the general public; feel free to browse Picture of the day/October 2015 and previous pages for examples). I have kept the credits as they relate to the illustration itself; the author/editor credits, though relevant to the book, are not directly related to the illustration. The restoration
 * On a related note, I have changed the creator parameter on Commons: the creator should be the creator of the illustration, and not the author of the book in which the illustration was published. That introduces a problem: the illustrators would have owned the copyright, and so the PD-70 claim may not be true. Unless the illustrators' death dates can be found, it's quite likely that the image will have to be migrated to the English Wikipedia. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No, this copy was published in the United States and the author owns the copyright as for nearly all anatomical atlases from the era (Pernkopf's being an exception where the copyright is explicitly attributed to the illustrators, but that doesn't matter because it isn't PD anyway being published in 1937 and with his death in 1955).
 * It is praxis to attribute the images to the author of these types of works, the only reason I changed it was because it specifically referred to Sobotta as the illustrator-which was wrong. P.S I again changed the text, but this time added links. If there is anything else that needs to be improved in the text please let me know. CFCF   💌 📧 23:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The country of first publication of this illustration (not the English text) was Germany, and thus that country's law needs to be considered for the file to be hosted on Commons (see Commons:Licensing). Furthermore, German copyright law didn't require a copyright statement/notice. The English Wikipedia only considers US copyright, and thus I've migrated the image here (it's still usable on the English Wikipedia either way).
 * I have added Sobotta to the blurb itself. "Work" is a non-descriptive parameter, as the illustration proper can also be considered a "work" (which, as you state, he wasn't responsible for). The reason he was indicated in the original draft was because he was the only one credited on the image description page; your nomination only listed yourself, not the illustrators. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As I stated the reason he was credited is because that is the normal standard of procedure regarding these images. I think it's a nice touch to add the names of the illustrators, and the reason I chose work was because it is difficult to determine which would otherwise be the best title for what supervising and taking part of every step of the illustration process should be called. Neither do the illustrators hold any copyright claim to the work, which is entirely Sobotta's. The image is allowed on commons, has been reviewed multiple times, including by a number of external professional copyright review sources to be in the public domain. If you would have asked me instead of creating a deletion request we could have saved ridiculous amounts of time. This image was never published in Germany and is unique when compared to the German version which uses a different latin terminology. CFCF   💌 📧 00:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you demonstrate that the illustrators do not hold any copyright claim? By default they would, unless there was some contract or arrangement to pass over the copyright to Sobotta or some other entity. Or can you link to some of these external professional copyright review sources so we can see on what basis they make their argument? As it stands, the English version appears to be a derivative of the German, and thus the copyright of the original needs to be considered. See FAQ/Copyright. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * See, you may contact them as I ahve done multiple times. CFCF   💌 📧 00:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * - Where are the references to that section? It is entirely contrary to exactly every single other source out there on copyright. Beyond being entirely inapplicable, that page does not apply to commons, this entire case is entirely frivolous and an enormous waste of time! CFCF  💌 📧 00:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * See for example Copyright in Derivative Works and Compilations from the US Copyright Office - let me know if you'd like a source for any specific point in the FAQ section. commons:Commons:Licensing is the Commons version. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Commons applies the law of the country that the work has been published in-in this case the United States. Per that rationale any image that could be in copyright anywhere should be disallowed from commons-because many countries do not apply the law of the shorter term. This image was published in the United States and falls under US. Any source concerning this image would have to go to German law, and it would still be inapplicable as the image was published in the United States. CFCF   💌 📧 00:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * At least going by the German article de:Bearbeitung (Urheberrecht) it is irrelevant. CFCF   💌 📧 01:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Under US law (and thus according to Commons) the US version is a derivative of the German. The US version is public domain in the US because both it and the original were published before 1923; it is not PD in Germany unless you can demonstrate that the original is PD in Germany. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

That interpretation flies in the face of all authoritative copyright reviewers, including the one I linked above and the ones I've been in touch with. Does it have any basis other than personal interpretation? CFCF  💌 📧 09:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, see for example the US Copyright Office document linked above, which identifies translations as derivative works. I'd be happy to provide more sources if you could note specifically which point of the interpretation you believe is false. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * But the fact that it is a derivative work is irrelevant when it comes to shorter copyright terms - the only thing mentioned in that document is that it does not prolong the term of copyright. CFCF   💌 📧 14:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact that a derivative work was created does not affect the length of the copyright of the original work, no. But in evaluating the copyright of the derivative work, we have to consider the copyright of the original work on which it is based. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:24, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No we don't - that claim is completely unsubstantiated. CFCF   💌 📧 20:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes we do - on Commons ("for example, the creator of The Annotated Hobbit holds a copyright on all of the notes and commentary he wrote, but not on the original text of The Hobbit which is included in the book. The original copyright is still valid"), on English Wikipedia ("You may not distribute a derivative work of a work under copyright without the original author's permission"), and beyond (eg. "assuming the original work has not fallen into the public domain...the underlying work is still protected and...only that material in the derivative work which was original to the derivative work's author has fallen into the public domain"). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No we don't–this is an entirely different situation. The copyright of the entire work has lapsed into the public domain, which is staunchly different to that situation. The book you link has not lapsed into the public domain, but if the US-editions were to not have been renewed they would have lapsed globally. The reading you are trying to apply is extremely troubling as it can potentially remove all pre-1923 and especially all 1923-1968 non-renewed copyrights in the United States. It is wrong. CFCF   💌 📧 06:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The original work has not lapsed into the public domain, only the derivative work has. This has no impact on the status of this or any other work in the US, but only on Commons. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:03, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

No, that is plainly wrong. The German versions copyright does not extend to the American version under any circumstance. This does not impact commons, because the work is American. CFCF  💌 📧 15:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Under Commons' rules the German version was the first publication, so its copyright has to be considered even though the later publication was American and is now PD in the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No, that just isn't what the rules say, and even if it were it has no legal basis. If a copyright lapses in the country of the published work it is PD in the whole world. It is not a coincidence that no other body has ever made this interpretation. CFCF   💌 📧 03:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is what the rules say - see WP:NUSC, which explains that works published before 1923 are PD in the US but may not be PD in other countries. Copyright lapsing in the US does not automatically mean that the work is PD in the entire world. And yes, other bodies have made this interpretation - see for example this article by Peter Hirtle, an expert in copyright. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:07, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No, that is a different concept called GATT restoration and only applies to works from 1923-1968 under special circumstances. It is not the same and not applicable here. CFCF  💌 📧 15:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The point is that just because something was published in the US and is PD in the US does not mean it is now PD everywhere. The first version of this image was published in Germany - this is the first publication, predating the US version, and has to be considered for the purposes of Commons hosting. Compare. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No the point is that non-US nationals could be exempted from the copyright renewal requirement that existed between 1923-1968. This work was published prior to 1923. CFCF   💌 📧 07:47, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes it was, but that doesn't determine its copyright status in the country of first publication (Germany), which instead bases copyright expiration on the date of death of the creator or copyright holder. If your claim about Sobotta being the copyright holder is correct, that means the work is still under copyright in Germany until the end of this year. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 13
 The Wikipedia Library <span style="font-size: 2em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif">Books & Bytes

Issue 13, August-September 2015 by, , ,

<div style = "margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: .9em"> Read the full newsletter The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * New donations - EBSCO, IMF, more newspaper archives, and Arabic resources
 * Expansion into new languages, including Viet and Catalan
 * Spotlight: Elsevier partnership garners controversy, dialogue
 * Conferences: PKP, IFLA, upcoming events

The Signpost: 30 September 2015
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:35, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

File:08klemperer.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:08klemperer.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Sigrid Hjerten - Ateljeinterior.jpg
A tag has been placed on File:Sigrid Hjerten - Ateljeinterior.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

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 removed 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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Resolved - Image was not in effect a direct duplicate, see explanation in the discussion below.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Sigrid Hjerten - Atiljeinterior.png
Where was the painting first shown? It may very well be PD in the US, but as you clearly state it's still under copyright in Sweden, meaning it can't be moved to Commons as easily, which was why the licensing tag was updated in good faith. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * , thanks I don't know why this was reverted. It must have been in error as there is an jpg that was nominated for deletion on no grounds whatsoever. CFCF   💌 📧 09:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The JPG was up for deletion, because it's a "practical" duplicate of the PNG version. In general there probably shouldn't be two images which are of the same original picture. Ideally there should be ONE image, and for artwork which is PD, the higher resolution copy is preferable. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * However, you note the two versions have a slightly different color profile. Do you know which is closest to the original artwork? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I cannot say–and such analysis is different depending on the monitor or whether the image is printed. We often carry up to 30 different versions of an original artwork, how is this different? CFCF   💌 📧 09:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Given that explanation. I see you'd already removed the F1 tag, Thanks :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Bukowskis logo.svg
Can you clarify why you considered this one non-free? Does Finland have different originality threshold, as all I'm seeing is a text logo (albiet in a script style)? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think they might, but it isn't Finish either, it's Swedish. I simply uploaded the image to replace the older logo, which in that case can be undeleted and both send to commons. CFCF   💌 📧 09:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * You'd have to ask an administrator (I'm not one) to review the deletion of the earlier version :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The previous version was the same word but in a different font. What else do you want to know? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer to restore it and upload to commons for historical record of the old logo. CFCF   💌 📧 11:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I've restored it. But as it was deleted as unused non-free I'd like you to resolve its status as soon as possible. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I've downloaded the images and am in the process of uploading them on commons. Will ping for delete on local file once it is finished. CFCF   💌 📧 11:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Both images now available at Commons: Commons:File:Bukowskis logo.svg, Commons:File:Bukowskis logo old.svg.


 * , feel free to delete the local file! CFCF   💌 📧 11:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * are you happy with this outcome? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I have no issue with an F8 deletion if the file is now at Commons and links have been updated, this is what happens you talk politely to people :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay deleted &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 October 2015
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

LCF Page
I am not sure why you have undone the changes to the LCF page? They are all properly referenced via the LCF website and therefore reflect the organisation's current activities. As mentioned, the innaccurate references on the current page are all linked to expired portions of the website or nothing at all.

The previous page was in particular factually inaccurate as it indicated that LCF was actively involved in public policy work and lobbying government. This is untrue. Those in charge of the public policy work, in particular Andreea Williams, left approximately seven years ago to form a new organisation called "Christian Concern" which now carries out such work. There is no connection between LCF and Christian Concern.

LCF's current focus is on building up Christians in the law in their faith and sharing the Christian message amongst other Christian lawyers plus the legal aid work in East Africa.

Hopefully this is clear from the current website but please contact me if you have any further queries.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajt47 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem is exactly that, because they are referenced from the organizations own webpage. To be honest the old information should be removed as well, but I haven't gotten to that. I advise you to read our most central policies, including WP:RS which specifies that you should only use independent secondary sources for information. Removing newspapers article-references with information that is critical of the organization is unlikely to get you far on Wikipedia. CFCF   💌 📧 15:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Your use of rollback
Please do not use rollback to revert good-faith and otherwise constructive edits as you did on File:C.s.lewis3.JPG. Your use of the feature in this case was misuse of the tool, and you should use the undo button if you disagree with edits like these. However, even here, your reversion was entirely unwarranted. If you continue to misuse the rollback function, your rights to it will be removed. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  01:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You will see that this was made in error as it removed a section which I had added myself. CFCF   💌 📧 09:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Let's drop the stick
I'm proposing we declare a truce about dogies and buttes and such. Time to just let it go. Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 02:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Revert?
This? Not sure why, there are no longer any orphaned versions in the history, which is explicitly what that template is for. --kelapstick(bainuu) 16:22, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * , there is something wrong with my mobile browser, it keeps sending the wrong commands to the server, that edit wasn't made on purpose (and frankly I didn't even notice making it). CFCF   💌 📧 16:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * (I'm going to stop using my mobile watchlist for the time being as this is the third time it's happened.) CFCF   💌 📧 16:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries, I just went through about 1200 of those, so my eyes are a little crossed, thought I might have missed something. I generally just use desktop view, as I find the mobile watchilst doesn't give me a usable view. --kelapstick(bainuu) 16:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * When you're using a mobile browser it can be really easy to accidentally tap the [Rollback] links on your watchlist. In case you didn't know, there's a method for removing those links if you're interested. See here. ~Awilley (talk) 20:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That's true (I had completely forgotten about that). Mandarax had originally written a script for it, but now it just has a on/off switch.  I never had rollback prior to being an administrator, and I still don't use it that often. --kelapstick(bainuu) 20:32, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually it's a button for requiring confirmation when rolling back on a mobile device, which is accessible at preferences>gadgets.--kelapstick(bainuu) 20:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * – Nice, just turned it on, but I'm unsure if it will work as I use the "demand desktop site" function. CFCF  💌 📧 20:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Damn, didn't work. I guess I'll just have to avoid the watchlist in that mode. CFCF  💌 📧 20:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess the one in "Preferences - Gadgets" is just for the mobile pages (it says it's for mobile devices). If you want the confirmation step for non-mobile can find instructions at User:MusikAnimal/confirmationRollback. ~Awilley (talk) 23:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 October 2015
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Revert
Hi CFCF, I'm a bit confused on why you've reverted me adding the AFD discussion to the talkpage ?, Do you disagree with the AFD closure ? .... – Davey 2010 Talk 20:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * , haha this is getting rediculous. If you check the history I restored it at once, but it was to test the lock which should prevent this from happending. It didn't work, sorry for the notification. I should have tested to revert myself first, but I was sure it would work as it is in the gadget menu. CFCF   💌 📧 22:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You do realize that's abusing Twinkle ? ... You can't smack " [rollback (VANDAL)] especially when it's not bloody vandalism!, If you're testing stuff then you say that (I don't have an issue if you're testing whatever but you need to state that in the edit summary).... I'm not a mind reader am I!... – Davey 2010 Talk 23:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * , it was not [rollback (VANDAL)] or Twinkle, it was just regular WP:Rollback, with no option for an edit summary. (See the section titled "Revert?" above.) I'm sure it won't happen again. ~Awilley (talk) 23:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Bugger you're right it wasn't twinkle at all so that's even worse!, Well to be fair alot of people do have issues with mobiles & rollback so can't really grumble but it's just irritating, meh shit happens I guess , – Davey 2010 Talk 00:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 October 2015
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello
Battleofalma (talk) 14:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

No consensus?
Here you reverted the closer of an RfC who was implementing the consensus found in that RfC, and adding a compromise for those who had opposed the change. "No consensus" is not a good edit summary for such a revert. ~Awilley (talk) 01:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well the consensus reading by the closer is completely wrong, there was an 11 v 4 vote against introducing the clause. As for compromise, there was none. The major issue with the addition is bloat, and adding more bloat isn't improving the situation. We shouldn't be dealing with hypotheticals. CFCF   💌 📧 01:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This edit summary is better, but still not great. Problems with "phrasing" are better solved with creative editing than wholesale reverting. I don't see a problem with "bloat" in the addition, since it was between tags. If your problem is with the close itself there are appropriate venues to contest that. On the surface I'm much more likely to trust the consensus reading of an uninvolved closer than an involved participant. ~Awilley (talk) 01:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, but regardless of that RfC we need to come up with a proper way to summarize consensus, and that doesn't exist right now. I've detailed some concerns on the talk page, and I hope we can get this sorted with some discussion. I'm in favor of getting a consensus-wording before introducing anything, rather than the other way round, which I find far less likely to be productive. CFCF   💌 📧 01:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for posting on the talk page. It might also help if you suggested how the wording might be tweaked in a way that would satisfy you. ~Awilley (talk) 01:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Reply
In re: By reducing the likelihood that good-faith people will run away from the discussion, by giving them something to smile about.

I wish that you hadn't started this discussion yet. We've got two ugly discussions on that page by groups that are trying to get MEDRS changed to support their POV in perpetually contentious articles. It's not a good environment for doing things right. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 October 2015
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

ANI Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Disruptive editing on Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) by CFCF. Thank you. Guy Macon (talk) 05:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your welcome. Luckydhaliwal (talk) 23:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC) <div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks"> Hello CFCF, Luckydhaliwal has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

The Signpost: 04 November 2015
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:28, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

TAFI talk

 * Hello :


 * You are invited to participate in this discussion at the TAFI talk page regarding improving the automation of project processes and management of the project. Your input is appreciated.

Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on

The Signpost: 11 November 2015
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Bot automation at Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement
<div style="position:relative; margin:0; background-color:#E2E7FF; border:1px solid blue; padding: 1em; color:#082840"> Greetings WikiProject TAFI members!

Over the past two weeks, there has been extensive discussion on introducing bot automation to assist with maintenance of the Today's Articles for Improvement project. A bot has now been approved for trial and will carry out the weekly duties. The bots first run will occur around 00:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC) (midnight on Sunday).

If you have been assisting any of the weekly maintenance tasks, please refrain from doing so this week. The bot needs to be tested and proven it can do the job, and it only gets one chance per week. The tasks will include:
 * Adding the new scheduled article to Wikipedia talk:Today's articles for improvement and removing the entry from Articles for improvement
 * Set up the schedule pages for the new TAFI, except the adding of an image and caption
 * Adding TAFI to the new article for improvement, remove TAFI from last week's article and add Former TAFI to the talk page
 * Notify relevant WikiProjects that the new TAFI is within their scope
 * Send a mass message to everyone on the notification list of the new TAFI selection

Updating the accomplishments and archiving selections is still done manually, along with daily tasks such as adding approved entries to the articles for improvement page. These will become automated in the near future.

We hope the bot proves to serve well, and by carrying out the routine housekeeping tasks we can boost the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the project. thanks you for your service in helping with the weekly tasks in the past, and for your cooperation during this trial period :)

Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:48, 21 November 2015 (UTC) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • for all project notifications

The Signpost: 18 November 2015
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:27, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Reply on the healthcare negativity - please have a look, thanks
Here is where I wrote my replies: Talk:Health care in the United States. 2601:647:4601:4634:A8EE:29FE:5863:6FC3 (talk) 01:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Dispute resolution is needed
I think we should have another person come in and take a look at this issue regarding U.S. Healthcare on Dispute resolution noticeboard. 2601:647:4601:4634:D455:1D6A:4C07:B030 (talk) 21:40, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There isn't even a dispute here. 4 at least 6 editors are in favor of keeping reliably sourced content, you wish to remove it – you're wasting everyone's time doing this. CFCF   💌 📧 21:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Please keep the discussion at the noticeboard - not here. Besides you haven't given your reasoning other saying that I am "wasting time", like I said several times, the issue should be resolved, not ignored.2601:647:4601:4634:D455:1D6A:4C07:B030 (talk) 22:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Health care in the United States. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

The Signpost: 25 November 2015
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Hyoid bone fracture
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 December 2015
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Jaccoud arthropathy
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 14
<div style = "color: #936c29; font-size: 4em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif"> The Wikipedia Library <span style="font-size: 2em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif">Books & Bytes

Issue 14, October-November 2015 by, , ,

<div style = "margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: .9em"> Read the full newsletter The Interior, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * New donations - Gale, Brill, plus Finnish and Farsi resources
 * Open Access Week recap, and DOIs, Wikipedia, and scholarly citations
 * Spotlight: 1Lib1Ref - a citation drive for librarians

regarding heart
sir myself a doctor and i would like to correct the width of heart 9 cm in place of 8 cm so please make it correct thanks Yogeshgarhi100 (talk) 17:25, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 December 2015
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:38, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:AE notice
A section on your recient behaviour has been opened at WP:AE here is a link. AlbinoFerret  14:34, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 December 2015
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:57, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to your friends' talk pages.

Thanks for all you have done this year :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Involved close
I suggest you undo your involved close of "What does MEDRS cover?". I have requested closure at WP:ANRFC. AlbinoFerret  22:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It is too late now, I have reversed the closure. Involved editors must not close discussions like this. (I won't be closing this either). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:51, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * PS- Happy Christmas and New Year! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

—A simple tally will show you that the side favoring inclusion is greater, and as such this was an uncontroversial close—WP:CLOSE dictates that this was entirely in order. CFCF  💌 📧 09:42, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Closing RFC's is not just counting votes. The whole RFC is controversial as evident by the number of comments. As a NAC, your interpretation of WP:CLOSE is very much incorrect. AlbinoFerret  13:55, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Golden Galen barnstar
Thanks for your many contributions to anatomy articles this year! --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Vote: Alexa Brown
I made a vote on Talk:Clyde cancer cluster. I encourage you highly to vote on whether Alexa should or shouldn't have a separate article. Thanks. Philmonte101 (talk) 03:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 December 2015
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:34, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Adding Name and Language for new translator
Hello!

I am a Lingala translator, I have some trouble to add the language (Lingala) and my name on the list to sign up. Please help me. Thank you.

The Signpost: 06 January 2016
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Request for your feedback, on an AE regarding ECIG Articles.
Hello, you are a recent editor of Electronic Cigarettes, I am asking for your input to an Arbitration Enforcement Request AE. Found here. If you have time I would appreciate your input. The items in question are listed out 1-8. Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Mystery_Wolff Thank you Mystery Wolff (talk) 03:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Abortion lead
Ummmh. . . if the use of drugs to induce abortion is more likely to cause unwanted side effects during the second trimester, which is basically what the very next sentence said then it is rather silly in the preceding sentence to say that drug induced abortions work just as well as surgical abortions in the first and second trimesters. Yes, the whole point of my edit was to change the sentence's meaning so that the two sentences did not contradict each other. I know that Swedes tend to have exemplary English skills but based on this, and your "Catholic Church has no official stand on abortion" nonsense, I am not sure of this particular Swede. Motsebboh (talk) 00:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Y chromosome
It seems that with this edit in Y chromosome you reverted user Shootingstar88 instead of the previous user. Can you look at it again? The second source looks good, but I'm not an expert on the subject. Thanks. --CX42 (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * —No, I reverted both. We were having some issues with sourcing as per WP:MEDRS as well as linking researchgate which isn't allowed. CFCF   💌 📧 23:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Sex differences in religion
If there are grading requirements for C-class it does not meet, please state them on the talk page. I did not see any it did not meet. tahc chat 19:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 January 2016
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Canvassing
This post on the e-cig talk page contains a ping to a editor who is uninvolved. Please do not ping in uninvolved editors. AlbinoFerret 16:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I would advise you to reread WP:CANVAS and to not post frivolous talk-page notices. CFCF  💌 📧 14:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

hi
I'm not certain if this was intentional,, thank you for your time--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it was definitely not intentional. Tiny cellphone buttons make my missclick at times, looking for a greesemonkey script to selectively remove the revert buttons (I run the desktop mode on my phone). CFCF   💌 📧 14:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * it happens :-)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 January 2016
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

AE section
A section has been opened on WP:AE about edits you have done. Here is a link. AlbinoFerret  17:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 January 2016
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Please dial it down
I meant what I wrote about your recent editing in my remarks at AE here.

Also your introduction of content about Diacetyl in the e-cig article was not appropriate, per MEDRS. Please do keep in mind that what folks in WP:MED say about MEDRS in one place needs to apply across the board. I cannot tell you how many times I have excluded content just like this - where there was all kinds of media hype about a primary source. Please don't do that going forward, anywhere in WP. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 08:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * —I think you misunderstood here and I tried to clarify at Talk:Electronic_cigarette. The added content was not sourced to primary or popular press sources, but I added it to the main article because of the popular-press attention. If you still oppose the content — that is fine, but it should be on the correct premises. Thanks, CFCF   💌 📧 21:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * striking that. my apologies, and i mean that.  I did mean what I wrote at AE, nonetheless.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 February 2016
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

My talkpage
I am sure you have better things to do than post on my talk page, such as taking care of patients, writing medical journal articles, and adding substance to Wikipedia. So I am doing you a favor by prohibiting you from ever posting on my talkpage again. I will do the same for you henceforth.

Archiving or deleting my talkpage is perfectly fine per Wikipedia policy. Never restore it again.

Hope you have a charmed and happy life. Ciao! 70.124.133.228 (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 February 2016
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 15
<div style = "color: #936c29; font-size: 4em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif"> The Wikipedia Library <span style="font-size: 2em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif">Books & Bytes

Issue 15, December-January 2016 by, , , ,

<div style = "margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: .9em"> Read the full newsletter The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * New donations - Ships, medical resources, plus Arabic and Farsi resources
 * # 1lib1ref campaign summary and highlights
 * New branches and coordinators

The Signpost: 17 February 2016
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Women's History Month worldwide online edit-a-thon
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Ipigott (talk) 08:52, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Please stay calm...
per this. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 03:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 February 2016
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Regarding MEDRS talk page discussion
In this post, you said, "David Tornheim — to me is seems you are the one who assumed bad faith." Please explain how I have assumed bad faith. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * —You chose to assume that was trying to evade his topic ban — when in fact he is an active contributor in medicine, and there are others that agree — your argument was very week. Neither should you attempt to silence him by bringing in the subject of his ban into the discussion, which is disingenuous.  CFCF   💌 📧 10:27, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Now you are assuming bad faith. Please cease. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No, — our social policies are not a suicide pact, and when I see malicious intent I will not hesitate to call it out.  CFCF   💌 📧 10:40, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There was no malicious intent. That is why you are assuming bad faith.--David Tornheim (talk) 11:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That essay on the "suicide pact" should seriously be deleted. I still have no idea what it means. It's almost as bad as the one about Reichstag climbing. --David Tornheim (talk) 11:32, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I should also point out that I was not the first to bring up GMO's: SMcCandlish brought it up in the discussion here.  I had avoided bringing it up before then--even though the AMA's press release on GMO's was on my mind when I first saw the subject SMcCandlish had brought up--precisely because I did not think it fair to Jytdog.  In fact, I almost explained my hesitation when I first did finally speak to GMO's and to apologize that it would restrict what Jytdog could say in response to what I added.  I mistakenly assumed that Jytdog would wisely avoid any discussion about that part of my post.  I was quite shocked that he not only did respond to that part of the post, but that he threw in a nasty accusation on top of it.  If he had said he was angry that GMO's had come up because he could not respond to that part, I can see that as annoying.   But it had nothing to do with him.  I was speaking primarily to SMcCandlish who wrote the language that was being discussed and had mentioned GMO's himself. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:00, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

 * please help translate this message into the local language

Thanks again :) -- Doc James  along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 03:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

You mean this?
This - Talk:Bipolar_disorder/Archive_7 is the discussion you mean? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I didn't realize it had been archived already. CFCF   💌 📧 12:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Only five people commented and some were noncommittal. We have a reader that appears quite upset by it. I think it'd be good to get a wider and more robust consensus. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There was pretty broad consensus on other pages about the same phenomena. The image is used extensively on government sites and in the literature. If we are going to start a discussion and not just waste time with pointless RfCs we need to frame it — and "I don't like it, it makes me upset" isn't sufficient to start an RfC. CFCF   💌 📧 12:30, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, you answer him directly then. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:34, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 March 2016
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

ANI discussion
WP:ANI. Feel free to explain your reading of "speedy keep" there. Fram (talk) 19:41, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Close of template for deletion discussion
I see that as really unwise and is not good for you, WP:MED, nor the research project. The decision is not WP:SNOW as there is not a string of !votes in one direction, and there are grounds to say you are not independent. And you obviously have strong feelings. Please self-revert. If you think it is close-able now, you can ask an admin to close it at AN. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The fact is that if there were two outcomes: delete or keep there is no question about whether it should be kept. It is quite possible to pick up the discussion about use or placement, but that is not for TfD, or at least should be framed differently. CFCF   💌 📧 19:46, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying. I ask you again to consider not just what you think is Right in a moment, but what is good for you, WP:MED, and the project.  You are not some lone agent in WP.  Please be more thoughtful about the big picture.  Please. Jytdog (talk) 00:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Templates for discussion/Log/2016 March 8
As a non-admin, you should not make controversial closures, a principle accepted by the community many times. Additionally, your closure clearly expresses an opinion for the deletion or inclusion of the template, against WP:INVOLVED, disregarding the arguments made for its deletion, instead unjustifiably discounting the arguments of the editors to !voted to delete. <span style="color: #33BBFF; font-family:Lato, monospace'">Esquivalience  t 19:50, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I did not consider the closure controversial — but following policy it is uncontroversial that it should be kept, and none of the arguments for deletion were policy-supported. As an admin you are free to overturn the close, but the fact remains that the relevant discussion is about how and where the template should be used, not if it should exist. CFCF   💌 📧 19:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Esquivalience is not an admin. BethNaught (talk) 20:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I am aware of this, I was speaking to anyone else who might feel compelled to visit my talk-page. CFCF   💌 📧 20:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Several objections to the template makes a closure controversial. Community consensus represents the entire community as well as the legitimate concerns of editors; if you believe that the reasons for deletion are not based on consensus, then !vote, not supervote (only uninvolved editors/admins can fairly judge arguments). <span style="color: #33BBFF; font-family:Lato, monospace'">Esquivalience  t 19:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I may have made the erroneous judgement that I was uninvolved, and still consider myself that — but Wikipedia does not operate by counting votes. None of the arguments for deletion amounted beyond I don't like it. The fruitful discussion should be aimed towards how the template can be used, not about whether or not it should exist. CFCF   💌 📧 20:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Warning wrong
I have put a message on User_talk:130.160.125.1 disagreeing with your warning to them. And a final warning when the previous edits look okay is just wrong too. Dmcq (talk) 21:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The warning is fully correct, if not vandalism the user was at the very least being intentionally disruptive. CFCF   💌 📧 21:55, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps, but seeing as the IP address links to a University, it is likely shared by multiple users. To ban on just two edits comes off as overkill. 130.160.195.6 (talk) 00:33, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I saw nothing disruptive about what they did. Perhaps you could explain your reasoning thanks. Dmcq (talk) 02:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 March 2016
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Verbage
Verbage, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Verbage and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Verbage during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. PS: I had originally drafted a WP:ARCA request but MfD seems like a lower-drama approach. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:ANEW action pending
I am preparing a WP:ANEW case against you, and a WP:AE one simultaneously. This destructive editwarring and the personal attacks stop now, or they will be stopped later. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

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. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * At your pal QuackGuru's request, I've closed the ANEW, on the good-faith assumption that the editwarring stops now that another editor is also revering your VERBAGE insertions at GAMING. Let this be the end of it please. (To that end, I will scrap my plans to MfD the other essay; I see you're working furiously to remove at least some of the WP:POLEMIC problems in it.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 March 2016
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

activated depression article
Do you have a copy of that activated depression article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beneficii (talk • contribs) 19:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * — Send me a mail :) CFCF   💌 📧 19:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I tried, but it doesn't work. I click the mail button in your signature and it says I must log in and verify an email address. It takes me to a log-in screen, and I log in. Then it takes me to the main page. I try clicking the mail button in your signature again; it says again that I must log in and verify an email address. It takes me to a log-in screen, and I log in. Then it takes me to the main page. Rinse and repeat. --Beneficii (talk) 20:34, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * @undefined CFCF   💌 📧 21:07, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I sent the email. --Beneficii (talk) 01:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I was able to make the update (ref 5):

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mixed_affective_state&oldid=711273987 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beneficii (talk • contribs) 00:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

?
Why did you archive an item that had been on the page for only three hours? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)