User talk:Ftrebien/Archive 1

Instructions on TeXnicCenter
Hi Ftrebien, I'm afraid I disagree with your edits of TeXnicCenter; specifically, I think they contravene What Wikipedia is not. Can you please respond at Talk:TeXnicCenter? Thanks, me_and 12:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Hey F, thanks so much for your translation and other edits at BioNTech. If you want to tackle another translation, I've got a copy from German WP at Draft:FACC AG and could really use any help you wish to give. Best, UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

July 2021
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Moderna COVID-19 vaccine, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ― Tartan357  Talk 21:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)


 * You're welcome, but I've been around for more than a decade! And I know discussions can and do get messy, and often participants don't clean up their own mess. Paintspot made a single edit with his signature in the middle of his message. Then you replied to him assuming he meant two separate messages. He now changed it so that it looks like two separate messages, but one cannot be sure that was the case before, as it is uncommon to post two consecutive messages in a single edit. So I understand why you're annoyed, but I don't think I've done anything wrong (WP:GOODFAITH), this was a misunderstanding. WP:TPO includes the possibility of moving as long as it does not change the meaning, to fix layout errors, to fix formatting errors, and for signature cleanup. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 22:38, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, it sounds like it was just a misunderstanding. Sorry for the template. I try to follow WP:DTTR, and I misjudged your experience. Always happy to run into a fellow queer an-cap weeb. ― Tartan357  Talk 22:58, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:X WP:Y WP:Z
Hi, "WP:IRRELEVANT" is part of an essay. You can use the word "irrelevant" as normal English, in lowercase, as linking to an essay does not add strength to an argument. A lot of WP:X WP:Y WP:Z makes your messages harder to read; this is okay for relevant policy or guideline shortcuts, but not for essays. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:12, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much! Emoji_u1f60a.svg ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:29, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! :D --Fernando Trebien (talk) 13:38, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

MEDRS
You seem to be continually adding (and now edit-warring) primary sources into COVID-19 articles, which fail WP:MEDRS and so are unreliable. You are aware of WP:MEDRS I take it? Alexbrn (talk) 14:40, 10 November 2021 (UTC)


 * As per WP:REVERT you must provide a proper reason for reverting. WP:MEDRS is extensive and only now you pointed out which condition you considered that my edit has failed. By undoing your revert, I also added an additional reference to support my edit. You are also aware that there are many primary sources in use all over COVID-19 related articles. WP:MEDRS disallows primary sources but considers Science a core journal and the National Institutes of Health a reputable major medical and scientific body. Do you consider these insufficient? Perhaps we should have a broader community discussion on which of the rules in WP:MEDRS take precedence when they are in conflict with each other. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 14:55, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I am aware the COVID-19 article are in a mess, that you are making them even worse, that edit-warring is in violation of policy, that the WP:ONUS for including disputed content rests with the editor seeking to include it, and that repeatedly adding unreliable sources on COVID is grounds for sanction. Please do not add further primary sources for medical claims, and if you get reverted maybe think about WP:BRD. If you continue causing problems I shall ask for you to be topic-banned. Alexbrn (talk) 15:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your perception that this was an editing war, as I added a reference in my second edit to support the new information. I have asked for opinions at the reliable sources noticeboard on how to properly apply the primary sources rule, since WP:MEDRS does not completely prohibits them. I respect your individual point of view but I would like to hear the community and hopefully clarify WP:MEDRS. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 16:12, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you, I appreciate it! --Fernando Trebien (talk) 22:54, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Template:ColorCell
Hi. Thanks for enhancing ColorCell. I really appreciate it! The Page Maker II (talk) 22:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

International Oscar Submissions
Hi, you recently updated the templates used in the articles with the various countries and their submissions to the Oscars, but I'm not sure this is a change for the better. Or perhaps it needs tweaking. Because using a red color for something being nominated strikes me as odd, as red is usually a negative color. We used to show red for Not Nominated and green for Nominated, with Gold for winning. That made sense. And now Shortlisted is almost the same color as winning the Oscar? I just think the previous colors were much more logical and easier to grasp. Jmj713 (talk) 04:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe the colors need tweaking and maybe some discussion. Be sure to check out the side-by-side view of unified table cell templates as you read. I did two things:
 * I reviewed the unified table cell templates to try to ensure they satisfy the manual of style for accessibility, making them lighter when they don't satisfy WCAG AAA on blue links (they are sometimes used with reference links) whenever the change looked small compared to the original colour. When the change would be large, then I only tried to meet WCAG AA. As a result, sho for Shortlisted was minimally changed from #f0e68c to #FE9 (slightly lighter and more colourful, but with approximately the same hue); and
 * I changed the article group you mentioned to use nom for Nominated as intended. They were using nom for Not nominated, just the opposite. To fix this, I created notnom for status Not nominated, initially with a neutral color, anticipating the need for further discussion. These articles, for example, List of submissions to the 93rd Academy Awards for Best International Feature Film, were not using the unified table cell templates according to their intent, only according to the colour they produce (see ). They were using good for Nominated (seems reasonable to me, both the colour and the intent of the template) and for Made Shortlist. However, most articles that use these templates, for example,, do not do it that way, they use nom, won and sho as originally intended. So what I did was get them to use these templates as intended and follow an uniform colour scheme already established, in preparation for the second step.
 * That is, tweaking. I totally agree with you that nom shouldn't be light red, though that's the status quo. nom is assigned the  class because, years ago, Nominated simply meant not won. That's probably why it's light red, it matched no2 when it was created. Then other statuses (like Shortlisted and Longlisted) were created that also meant not won. Meanwhile, won started accepting a   parameter for winning a gold, silver or bronze award, with the colours of those outcomes. When no   is entered, the default of won is green, which is very different from gold. This doesn't make much sense, but it's the status quo. I don't like status quo stonewalling, so I boldly proposed changing the colour and class of nom to match some (very light yellow) and class  . This looked good in the articles in item #2 above.
 * Unfortunately this clashed with pending (same light yellow shade) which was used in some other articles. The full discussion is at . The change was reverted because it was considered controversial. I was trying to convince them that matching partial (a darker light yellow) would probably solve the problem completely, but they were not willing to try it and opted for protocol, so they reverted the change back to light red. This template is protected, so all changes (from light red to light yellow and revert to red) cannot be done by me, they require the intervention of an administrator.
 * What you can do: join that discussion and support changing nom away from light red. I'm not sure if the colour of partial is the best choice, but it's one of the smaller changes. Midway in the discussion I provided a table with various colour choices, unofficial2 (Proposal 2) closely matches good as used earlier in the articles in item #2. But that would be a bigger change. You could also propose a change of sho from yellow to powderblue (as was used in articles in item #2 above, but not WCAG AAA) or perhaps #CEF (WCAG AAA). And, of course, if you think the colour of notnom should be changed, I welcome suggestions. But with a better colour for nom, a gray notnom might make sense. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 13:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Naming the vaccine brands
Hi. May I know why you only write "CoronaVac" instead of "the CoronaVac vaccine" like other brands on COVID-19 vaccination in Indonesia and Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in Indonesia (2021)? Like I said, I think it would be better to uniformise them. Thanks. HiChrisBoyleHere (talk) 17:23, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "the CoronaVac vaccine" is grammatically inadequate because CoronaVac is a proper noun, it is the name of a specific product. In most of the English-speaking media, you will not see CoronaVac being called "the CoronaVac vaccine". English-speaking media refers to COVID-19 vaccines in three ways:
 * Descriptions with names of developer organizations: the Sinovac (COVID-19) vaccine, the Oxford-AstraZeneca (COVID-19) vaccine, the Pfizer-BioNTech (COVID-19) vaccine, the Moderna (COVID-19) vaccine, the Janssen (COVID-19) vaccine or the Johnson & Johnson (COVID-19) vaccine, the Sinopharm BIBP (COVID-19) vaccine, the Sinopharm WIBP (COVID-19) vaccine, the Novavax (COVID-19) vaccine
 * Note that "COVID-19" is almost always omitted or mentioned only once as it is obvious in context
 * Trade names: CoronaVac, Covishield, Comirnaty, Covaxin, Convidecia, Sputnik V, Sputnik Light, Spikevax, Abdala
 * Research names (common at the beginning of the research period): BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, Ad26.COV2.S
 * Descriptions sometimes refer to a family of very similar vaccines (the case of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine) and are sometimes used for vaccines without an agreed common trade name (the others in the list). Sometimes descriptions also omit part of the company name, for example, the Pfizer vaccine, or the AstraZeneca vaccine; these are less formal. Trade names usually refer to a single vaccine (for example, CoronaVac) and sometimes refer to a specific vaccine in a family (for example, Covishield and Comirnaty, which are types of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine and the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine respectively). Trade names are specific, while most descriptions simply surfaced amidst the somewhat chaotic development period in 2020 and 2021.
 * English Wikipedia has adopted the trade name as the article title when the vaccine is best known by that name, and the description as the title when it is best known by the description in the Anglosphere. Even if you're writing about the situation in Indonesia, you're writing for an English-speaking audience, so it's best to follow these conventions. You may also use a trade name when it is more specific and correct. In the case of Indonesia, one needs to first ensure that the vaccine being used is actually the one the specific trade name refers to. There was often confusion in various countries when subsequent shipments of a vaccine were not exactly the same vaccine; locals would remember the first name (as reported by local media) and not realize that later vaccines are actually a slightly different product. If not sure, just use the name in the article title of these vaccines, either the description type (with the format "the [company] vaccine") or the trade name type (no extra words).
 * English media may, in the future, use international nonproprietary name which is the convention in Wikipedia. For now, the community wants to keep using mostly the descriptions (see closed discussions for Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine and the Moderna vaccine). --Fernando Trebien (talk) 19:41, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

2022 monkeypox outbreak task force invitation
Hello! I know you have an interest in the ongoing 2022 monkeypox outbreak, so I wanted to invite you to the new monkeypox outbreak task force, which I started from the WikiProject of current events. The task force’s goal is to improve any and all articles relating to the new outbreak. I hope you consider joining! Elijahandskip (talk) 17:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the invitation! --Fernando Trebien (talk) 20:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Sources from Russian wikipedia
Please be careful not to add unreliable sources and content from articles on Russian Wikipedia. This includes all state run media and entities controlled by the Russian government (domestic and foriegn). Also it is important to check all the sourcing for content when translating an article to ensure that the source verifies the information.  // Timothy :: talk  23:36, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I know. The Belarusian Vechernyaya Base is one of the few active research stations in Antarctica, so it is relatively notable, although information in Western sources is scarce. Of the existing articles, the Belarusian one is, as expected, the one that contains the most information, that's why I translated it as a starting point. I have included one secondary source: reference #1, from COMNAP, used as reference for the summer and winter population at the station. This source contains a significant amount of information that can be used to gradually improve the article. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 01:16, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Research Stations
Hi. By removing the coordinates from the list, this is no longer complete as it is necessary to check the research station page to know where it is. Following this “philosophy” I think it is enough to write a flat list! Cordially. Chesipiero (talk) 14:36, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This is the most common place for the coordinates in most articles, so this is where I would normally expect to find the coordinates of a station as a reader. I removed them after thoroughly ensuring the referenced articles had the correct coordinates. Different editors replicating them in multiple places and copying from different sources caused them to diverge over the years, often by many kilometres, and from the edit history it looked like no one was checking this. In the list of inactive stations, for example, there are currently more than 15 items whose coordinates do not match those of the respective referenced articles. When checking the coordinates, I found that sometimes the article had a more accurate/correct coordinate than the tables, and sometimes it was the other way around (and sometimes it was the respective article in another language). This massive replication makes it difficult to know which of the coordinates is correct, and unnecessarily requires editors to know the many places where the coordinate needs to be modified when updating or correcting it. Hopefully one day it will be enough to define the coordinate in the wikidata item and all its references will stay in sync automatically. Another reason for removal is that the tables were too wide to fit in the normal space of the article, and the reader would rarely compare the coordinates of the table entries or sort the table by the coordinates (if they would, then we would need to have separate columns for latitude and longitude so that the reader could choose how they prefer to sort it). --Fernando Trebien (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Vechernyaya Base
Hello, Ftrebien. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Vechernyaya Base, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 06:01, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Vechernyaya Base


Hello, Ftrebien. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Vechernyaya Base".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 05:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 8
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Base Presidente Eduardo Frei Montalva, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page King George Island.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to join New pages patrol
Hello Ftrebien! Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
 * We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
 * Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
 * Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
 * If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.