User talk:CFCF

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Crystal Clear app clock.svg It is approximately 7:29 PM where this user lives. (Gothenburg)



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[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]

Young cats.jpg

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[edit]

Flest utökade.svg
  • 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)

This week's article for improvement (week 33, 2015)[edit]


Berries for sale at a farmers' market

Hello, CFCF.

The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection:


Please be bold and help to improve this article!

Previous selections: Farmhouse • Igloo

Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations

Posted by: EuroCarGT (talk) 00:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • Opt-out instructions

Women in Red[edit]

Werner projection SW.jpg Formal merge proposal
There is currently a merge discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red#Formal merge proposal. As you are a member of WiR, this is a courtesy notification in case you want to join in the discussion. Thank you. Rosiestep (talk) 02:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 August 2015[edit]

Fruit preserves[edit]

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 blahI did it!) 09:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Jerem43 No, it is not. Only specific set articles should be pluralized such as Cranial nerves. See Wikipedia: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#Exceptions) applies:
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 blahI 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 blahI 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)

This week's article for improvement (week 34, 2015)[edit]

Soufflés au chocolat, coeur au citron.jpg

Three plates of soufflés

Hello, CFCF.

The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection:


Please be bold and help to improve this article!

Previous selections: Berry • Farmhouse

Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations

Posted by: EuroCarGT (talk) 00:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • Opt-out instructions

The Signpost: 19 August 2015[edit]


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)

This week's article for improvement (week 35, 2015)[edit]

Blenheim Palace cropped.jpg

Blenheim Palace, a famous English historic house

Hello, CFCF.

The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection:

Historic house

Please be bold and help to improve this article!

Previous selections: Soufflé • Berry

Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations

Posted by: EuroCarGT (talk) 00:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • Opt-out instructions

Your recent deletions to "Planned Parenthood"[edit]


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[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Abortion, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

--slakrtalk / 03:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 August 2015[edit]

You're invited! Women in Red World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Leadership[edit]

You are invited!World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in LeadershipCome and join us remotely!
World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Leadership
Dates: 7 to 20 September 2015
Love Heart KammaRahbek.SVG

The Virtual Edit-a-thon, hosted by Women in Red, will allow all those keen to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Women in Leadership to participate. As it is a two-week event, inexperienced participants will be able to draw on the assistance of more experienced editors while creating, translating or improving articles on women who are (or have been) prominent in leadership. All levels of Wikipedia editing experience are welcome. RSVP and find more details →here←--Ipigott (talk) 08:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 36, 2015)[edit]

Mennonite Family - Campeche - Mexico - 02.jpg

A Old Colony Mennonite family observing the practice of plain dress

Hello, CFCF.

The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection:

Plain dress

Please be bold and help to improve this article!

Previous selections: Historic house • Soufflé

Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations

Posted by: EuroCarGT (talk) 00:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • Opt-out instructions

Inna discography[edit]


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)

You're invited! Smithsonian APA Center & Women in Red virtual edit-a-thon on APA women[edit]

Asian Pacific American Women World Virtual Edit-a-thon
Sarah Chang before performing.jpg
Love Heart KammaRahbek.SVG
"The Smithsonian APA Center invites you to attend the 2nd annual Wikipedia APA an editathon for cultural presence, which will be held during the month of September 2015. We are thrilled to invite you to Wikipedia APA, an editing event for improving and increasing the presence of cultural, historic, and artistic information on Wikipedia pertaining to Asian Pacific American ("APA") experiences. The second Wikipedia editathon dedicated to APA content, this project will occur as physical events during September 2015... as well as remotely, with participants taking part from all throughout the world."
Did you Know that 15% of the biographies on Wikipedia are about women? Not impressed? WiR focuses on "content gender gap". If you'd like to help contribute articles on women and women's works, we warmly welcome you! WiR will be hosting one of this world virtual edit-a-thon. The 3-day event will focus on improving Wikipedia's coverage of Asian Pacific American women and their works (books, paintings, and so on).

--Rosiestep (talk) 03:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Five minutes to help make WikiProjects better[edit]


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[edit]

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. [[1]] 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[edit]

asking your opinion[edit]

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)

Cityside189 – 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)

This week's article for improvement (week 37, 2015)[edit]

Olympic parc Munich High Diving SV Stadtwerke 0646.JPG

Two high divers in mid-air

Hello, CFCF.

The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection:

High diving

Please be bold and help to improve this article!

Previous selections: Plain dress • Historic house

Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations

Posted by: EuroCarGT (talk) 00:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • Opt-out instructions

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inna discography[edit]

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 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inna discography. Kraxler (talk) 22:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Fat embolism[edit]

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 ([2] [3] and are disruptive) or Doc James Doc James again, please take to talk page ,,,thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


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)
RJFJR - 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[edit]

A complaint about your edits has been filed at WP:AN3[edit]

Please see WP:AN3#User:CFCF reported by User:Ozzie10aaaa (Result: ). 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#User:CFCF reported by User:Ozzie10aaaa (Result: Warnings). 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[edit]

What is this intended to fix? Alakzi (talk) 11:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Alakzi 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 reason parameter is quite clumbsy and counterintuitive and I made a BOLD edit. It is possible a different method using {{{1}}} 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: {{Cleanup|reason=}}. Alakzi (talk) 12:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that often it's added in the format {{Cleanup}} or {{Cleanup|Does not adhere to the manual of style}}. 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[edit]

Hi CFCF this is the link - cheers --Iztwoz (talk) 19:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Your edit[edit]

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

This week's article for improvement (week 38, 2015)[edit]

Bartholin head transect.jpg

Transection of a human head

Hello, CFCF.

The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection:


Please be bold and help to improve this article!

Previous selections: High diving • Plain dress

Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations

Posted by: EuroCarGT (talk) 00:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • Opt-out instructions

Alpha-gal allergy issues[edit]


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[edit]

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[edit]

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 Wikipedia: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[edit]

This week's article for improvement (week 39, 2015)[edit]

Gutt på hvit hest.jpg

"Boy on white horse" by Theodor Kittelsen

Hello, CFCF.

The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection:

Scottish mythology

Please be bold and help to improve this article!

Previous selections: Head • High diving

Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations

Posted by: EuroCarGT (talk) 00:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • Opt-out instructions

Reference errors on 20 September[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit summary question[edit]

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)


#* Note: A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured.

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)
BullRangifer 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[edit]

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 "" (supposing that whle oil is an improper word and misspelled). I guess if it was really bad we could do a on it :) (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, 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[edit]

Ambox warning orange.svg 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[edit]

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 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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)


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[edit]

This week's article for improvement (week 40, 2015)[edit]


Personal finance – an example image of personal budget planning software

Hello, CFCF.

The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection:

Personal finance

Please be bold and help to improve this article!

Previous selections: Scottish mythology • Head

Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations

Posted by: EuroCarGT (talk) 00:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • Opt-out instructions

POTD notification[edit]


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 Wikipedia: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)
@Crisco 1492: 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)
@Crisco 1492: 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 Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright#Derivative_works. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
See [4], you may contact them as I ahve done multiple times. CFCF 💌 📧 00:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Nikkimaria - 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#Derivative_works 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[edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg The Wikipedia Library


Books & Bytes
Issue 13, August-September 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

  • 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

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2015[edit]

This week's article for improvement (week 41, 2015)[edit]

Hello, CFCF.

The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection:

Musical composition

Please be bold and help to improve this article!

Previous selections: Personal finance • Scottish mythology

Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations

Posted by: EuroCarGT (talk) 00:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • Opt-out instructions

File:08klemperer.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:08klemperer.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion 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[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Sfan00 IMG, 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[edit]

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? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
MSGJ 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. — 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.

Both logos now on Commons
MSGJ, feel free to delete the local file! CFCF 💌 📧 11:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Sfan00 IMG: are you happy with this outcome? — 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 — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 October 2015[edit]

This week's article for improvement (week 42, 2015)[edit]


Costumed performers from the 2006 Bristol Renaissance Faire

Hello, CFCF.

The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection:


Please be bold and help to improve this article!

Previous selections: Musical composition • Personal finance

Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations

Posted by: EuroCarGT (talk) 00:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • Opt-out instructions

LCF Page[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 15:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Ajt47 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)