Jump to content

User talk:Cyclopia/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AfD

[edit]

Hi, Cyclopia. It's probably best to avoid describing AfD nominations as "nonsensical" [1], as it sounds a lot like a personal attack on the nominator. I think it's better just to say something like the nomination doesn't seem to be based on any policy. Dricherby (talk) 14:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right. Apologies, thanks for letting me notice. --Cyclopiatalk 14:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! Dricherby (talk) 19:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 19 June 2013

[edit]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Original Barnstar
Nice work on re-purposing Timeline of food and thanks for the work you put into it. Also, I've added some images to the article. Cheers! Northamerica1000(talk) 01:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of food, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Britain and Crackers (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) 10:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 June 2013

[edit]

Please comment on Talk:Manned mission to Mars

[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Manned mission to Mars. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 14:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 03 July 2013

[edit]

ANI

[edit]

You might consider moving your !vote up to the voting section. It may not be noticed where you put it. Good luck. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I was in a hurry and didn't notice. Thanks. --Cyclopiatalk 11:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion for Timeline of Sun Myung Moon

[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Timeline of Sun Myung Moon, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC) Steve Dufour (talk) 15:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kader Bahini

[edit]

Actually, if you'd looked more carefully, you'd have seen that what you call "nonsense" is actually the personal recollections of a 63-year-old army veteran with a poor grasp of English who doesn't know how to edit Wikipedia very well.

It wasn't suitable for the article (and the editor is long gone), but please spend a little more time investigating when you see stuff like this. Somebody might need help. Thanks. — Scott • talk 22:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your heads up (It doesn't make it any less nonsense in the article context, but I agree I could have been more sensitive in my wording). -- cyclopiaspeak! 10:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited NGC 6811, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cygnus (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) 10:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for NGC 6811

[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 20:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Doublethink

[edit]

There's a difference between my edits and Dream Focus' edits. Dream Focus posted to ARS. I didn't post to any noticeboards or talk pages. Places DF's canvassed: 1. Places I've canvassed: 0. I don't understand why you, DF and Warden are so defensive whenever I nominate something for deletion and/or express displeasure at the ARS pbp 15:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that posting to ARS is no more canvassing than posting to AFD: people with your wiki-philosophies have it in their watchlist, after all. I am not defensive when you nominate something for deletion: heck, I even agreed with the !delete in the case in point. The problem with the ARS instead is that you are entitled to dislike the ARS, but you are not entitled to relentlessly accuse a wikiproject of canvassing or questioning its legitimacy without evidence and/or consensus -that is highly disruptive and just creates drama. The ARS is an open, legitimate (as per consensus) wikiproject. If you disagree with its aims or perceived "agenda", just put it in your watchlist and follow the AfD's therein listed, as no doubt you already do. Easy peasy. -- cyclopiaspeak! 15:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just because a months-old discussion had 51% of people saying that the ARS could continue doesn't mean that you are immune to future accusations of canvassing. Nearly every article nominated for rescue gets a Keep from Dream Focus and a Keep from Warden; this was no exception. In many cases, those two vote Keep without editing the article, or certainly improving it, and often they vote Keep without citing a relevant policy or guideline. Honest politicians is an exception to that because Warden created the article to prove a POINT about American public officials convicted of crimes, an AfD closed with the rationale "No policy based keep !votes" when the two people voting Keep where Dream Focus and Warden, who rather than cite any policies or guidelines, accused the nominator of bad faith. These two AfDs are textbook examples of the ARS just coming out to !vote without any real policy or guidelines to back them up. Another thing they are an example of is Warden's continual need to berate me or any other person who votes Delete. The fact that Warden and DF are so hostile to people who vote delete has resulted in me disliking ARS and all it stands for pbp 15:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "doesn't mean that you are immune to future accusations of canvassing." Every editor and wikiproject oughts to be immune to unfounded accusations. Do you have proof for that? If so, AN/I is that-a-way.
  • "Nearly every article nominated for rescue gets a Keep from Dream Focus and a Keep from Warden" - So do many articles not listed at ARS. So what? You just found out DF and CW are inclusionists (and I am too, btw, even if perhaps slightly less). What a resounding discovery. But this is no proof of canvassing at all: it is just proof that two ARS-active editors happen also to have a certain philosophy in the wiki. Canvassing would be if someone went calling them and only them on their talk pages, or if the ARS was a secret or near-secret page no deletionist editor is aware of.
  • "In many cases, those two vote Keep without editing the article, or certainly improving it" - So what? I am not a great fan of WP:HEY either, our policies demand us to evaluate the article subject, not its current state, to judge for its suitability, per WP:ATD. Sometimes I did such improvements, sometimes I don't. It depends on the case.
  • "These two AfDs are textbook examples of the ARS just coming out to !vote without any real policy or guidelines to back them up."' - If you have problems with these two editors, stick to that, and don't put the whole ARS in.
  • "Warden's continual need to berate me or any other person who votes Delete." - Sorry but that's hypocrisy at its best. You accuse a wikiproject of canvassing without proof. You accuse editors of having been canvassed without proof. You disregard the consensus that legitimates a wikiproject. You go harassing these editors on their talk pages, over and over, accusing them of wikihounding and what else, and then you whine because they politely argue with you on AFD debates? Grow up. -- cyclopiaspeak! 17:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 July 2013

[edit]

The Signpost: 17 July 2013

[edit]

Please comment on Talk:Do not feed the animals

[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Do not feed the animals. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 15:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of food, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dutch (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) 11:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 July 2013

[edit]

Thanks

[edit]

for your help, but could you remove that word "drama"? It's not helpful and it's meaning is unclear. Chrisrus (talk) 22:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has a very clear meaning and it well describes the situation, IMHO. -- cyclopiaspeak! 11:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of food, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Squash (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) 11:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 July 2013

[edit]

Please comment on Talk:Final Cut Pro

[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Final Cut Pro. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 15:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Soccia!

[edit]

Ahaha unfortunately I haven't met anyone from Bologna in En Wikipedia. You are the first one! -- Nick.mon (talk) 17:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

[edit]

Hi,

I don't think our paths have crossed before, but I wanted to take this opportunity to applaud you for your well-phrased comments regarding the reuse of our content. If only more editors had your understanding. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome -- cyclopiaspeak! 10:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sexual dimorphism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stress (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) 10:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 07 August 2013

[edit]

BLP

[edit]

Hi, could you go back to [2] and clarify how you feel about the other options? Thanks, Hobit (talk) 19:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done -- cyclopiaspeak! 19:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of food, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Cordoba and Native American (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) 10:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 August 2013

[edit]

Please comment on User:Brews ohare/ontological pluralism

[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on User:Brews ohare/ontological pluralism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 15:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of food, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Abydos (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) 11:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

[edit]

Your edits at List of cruelty to animal incidents in Canada. It is against the rules at Wikipedia to alter an article when it is being discussed for deletion. In addition, vandalism is not condoned. IQ125 (talk) 15:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Slight lack of clue, I think. Cyclopia, you have my sympathies... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll help you keep the defamatory statements you deleted out of the article pbp 15:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if I get support from both AndyTheGrump and PBP, I must be doing something right . Sorry User:IQ125, not only it is absolutely permitted to edit an article when it is at AFD, it is even encouraged (see WP:HEY). Also, there is no vandalism at all there: just removal of information which is not relevant in the article and probably not WP:BLP-compliant. --cyclopiaspeak! 15:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rare Earth

[edit]

Oh dear... sorry! I will try to space my edits out, but fixing that next poorly worded sentence is so tempting that I can hardly restrain myself. I agree that my whole-article edits really aren't minor, so OK, I'll leave that box unmarked.

-Duxwing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duxwing (talk • contribs) 19:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Andre Marshall

[edit]

I understand we are at the opposite ends of our notability views in this project, but please the next time you participate in an AFD, look at the sources before you decide to comment. I personally feel those nominations are very WP:POINTY themselves, nominating a bunch of Murder of X articles in a short period of time, but the Marshall article was a complete hoax. None of those sources ever existed and Google show only Wikipedia mirrors. I left a screenshot of the article prior to deletion at Wikipediocracy for you and others to see. Just a reminder so you don't have to look like a fool the next time you comment in AFD. Thanks Secret account 02:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Thanks a lot. It seems to me they were written down as offline sources, which I couldn't check, however I didn't think of counter-checking them online. Lesson learned in assuming too much good faith. You're free to laugh at me as much as you want there at WO, guess I deserve it :) --cyclopiaspeak! 07:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 August 2013

[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Somer Thompson

[edit]

you might want to reconsider that not every murder is notable or meets WP:PERSISTENT. LibStar (talk) 02:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I never maintained that every murder is notable. But murders that are notable per WP:GNG and generate persistent coverage should be kept. Your argument in the nomination that "GNG does not apply to murders" is completely unfounded -and in fact most of the other "Death of..." and "Murder of..." articles we opined recently closed as keep. All delete arguments in that AfD ignored notability guidelines in letter and spirit, and were basically WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I will not challenge it under DRV because consensus was what it was, but it has not been an AfD to be proud of. Also, while I understand you are in perfectly honest good faith, I am of the opinion that many of your AfD nominations are a serious harm to the project. I ask you instead to reconsider your ongoing efforts at AfD asking yourself what is the real advantage such deletions of these articles give to our readers. --cyclopiaspeak! 18:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
we use consensus. I'm sure you believe almost every article up for deletion should be kept. That Is simply not the case. We should not keep articles for WP:NOHARM to readers. I will continue to nominate articles for deletion. If articles are notable they will survive AfDs. Kind regards. LibStar (talk) 22:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you believe almost every article up for deletion should be kept. - I'm sure you think using a lot of very wrong assumptions, and this is one of them. There is lots of stuff that I maintain can be safely deleted: original research topics, duplicates, hoaxes, unverifiable articles, unnotable living people, etc. Another of your misguided assumptions is that I justify my keeping with the argument that such articles are simply harmless. Instead, they are verifiable, reasonable, informative, encyclopedic articles: but people like you, again, erroneusly assume that since you don't find the topic interesting, then nobody oughts to know about it. We are here for the readers' service, but many editors seem to forget it altogether. In fact, you carefully avoided to answer: what is the advantage to our readers in deleting such articles? Curiously enough, when I ask this question, almost nobody ever answers. --cyclopiaspeak! 09:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP is not a repository of every single verifiable topic, nor have ever ever I said not interesting is a reason for deletion. Well established consensus of notability exists of many topics, you seem to think topics must be kept because there is a disadvantage to readers if they are deleted. That is not a reason for keep and would hardly pass in an AfD. Perhaps you could set up your own online encyclopedia where the bar for notability suits you. LibStar (talk) 11:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP is not a repository of every single verifiable topic - I know. Thanks for adding another straw man to the collection.
  • you seem to think topics must be kept because there is a disadvantage to readers if they are deleted. - That's the whole point of an online encyclopedia: being of help to readers. Otherwise it's just collective masturbation. Do you contribute to Wikipedia to actually help people who use it, or just because you are bored? That such an argument would hardly pass in an AfD means only how broken is the project.
  • Perhaps you could set up your own online encyclopedia where the bar for notability suits you. - This one suits me just fine, thanks. The notability bar as written in guidelines is, with some minor exceptions, quite fine: it is the way it is interpreted at times that is damaging. I don't feel comfortable leaving WP in the hands of editors that (as you admit above) explicitly ignore the impact of their decisions on who actually uses this encyclopedia. The more people like you come here to bully me asking me to "reconsider", the more I am convinced there is people who wants this project helpful for people, and who just uses it as a platform for their own egos. --cyclopiaspeak! 11:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Racism in Italy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mongolian (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) 11:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 August 2013

[edit]

The Signpost: 04 September 2013

[edit]

The Signpost: 11 September 2013

[edit]

Please comment on Talk:Penis

[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Penis. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 01:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 September 2013

[edit]

Greg Retallack

[edit]

Hi. As a contributor to the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Retallack on Greg Retallack I let you know that there is a debate going on the article's talk page Talk:Gregory Retallack about how to implement the findings of the AfD . Xxanthippe (talk) 00:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]

The Signpost: 25 September 2013

[edit]

Please comment on Talk:VPIN

[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:VPIN. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request

[edit]

Greetings. Because you participated in the August 2013 move request regarding this subject, you may be interested in participating in the current discussion. This notice is provided pursuant to Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 02 October 2013

[edit]

Question

[edit]

Why is it OK for one user to label people they disagree with, cast unevidenced aspersions and act as if raising concerns about unsourceable BLPs are a crime but when another user calls them out on it they are a bully? Not very even handed was it? Spartaz Humbug! 09:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see no aspersions there, only reasonable concerns about the behaviour of certain editors. I have little interest in discussing PORNBIO itself because of similar concerns -it is a toxic issue. However I do not tolerate editors be told to go off wiki to discuss their opinions. --cyclopiaspeak! 10:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have two options on wiki, accept consensus or find another site whose consensus you can accept. Its not bullying to point this out. As for your tolerance of attacks on myself and other users - well I'm sure you don't give two figs about whether or not I have a good opinion about you. Spartaz Humbug! 13:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have two options on wiki, accept consensus or find another site whose consensus you can accept - No, you have a third, as in any other reasonably free society: argue your own position and hope to change consensus -if not today, one day. Minority positions have a full right to be voiced and represented. To intimidate editors who express non-mainstream positions is bullying. I don't fully understand what you mean by "attacks on myself and other users", but yes, I care little about your opinion of myself. I care more of the fact that consensus does not mean that alternative positions must be silenced. --cyclopiaspeak! 13:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

[edit]

secrets of nature
Thank you, editor interested in "political uncorrectness" and "deep secrets of nature", for quality articles such as Andiva and Life on Another Planet, for saving articles from deletion by improving them, for insight on consensus and bias, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:05, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Awwwww, thanks! --cyclopiaspeak! 11:40, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 09 October 2013

[edit]

Agree to Disagree

[edit]

In all honesty, I do not care too much. I strongly disagree with the assessment, and I understand the no paper stuff. The way I read all the guidelines, it is as cut and dry as possible that it does not belong, but if the community disagrees, so be it. This is not something important enough really, and I am not sure why I am even arguing about it. From An American Jew.Sposer (talk) 17:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's the right attitude. My philosophy, which of course can be and is actually disagreed by many, is that once we we meet the spirit of notability, that is, when we have the technical conditions to have a meaningful article, we should have it, even if the topic is silly, obscure or bizarre. We're here to cater all kinds of readers, and what is trivial for us may be very important for others, in ways we cannot necessarily fathom now. Thanks for your input anyway --cyclopiaspeak! 17:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Radiative equilibrium

[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Radiative equilibrium. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 October 2013

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I invite Glc72 to stop posting on my talk page.

Thanks

[edit]

My english would be very good but many times i write in a hurry.I contributed now and in the past to many articles.Italy presentation in Italy article must be ADEQUATE with the Symbols and its prestige.Italy first of all is 9th in the world as nominal GDP ( i noticed that Wikipedia editors give much more importance to GDP than net wealth.Huge mistake,it's net wealth that moves world.I never saw a serious article in Wikipedia based on "Net national wealth" that could be based on Credit Suisse Global Wealth Report Databook).Italy is member of the G7 that isn't cited in the presentation and has much more prestige than the G8.Italy was reported as a MAIN MIDDLE POWER that somebody deleted even with the block.The article presentation was changed several times in the last times and this isn't serious with the Italian Symbols aside. (Flag,Emblem,President).This isn't a common article with these Symbols aside.Now i've been very clear.So in the main Italy presentation must be done at least these 3 changes,please.I already warned not officially authorities of it.NOW MY IMPRESSIONS) In my opinion there are many secret services active in many articles above all in history,military and policy to well present what they care (propaganda) .I doubt a lot of broad consensus criteria and not only.In "Superpower" article for istance to change it takes the broad consensus of many people from all over the world.It's easy to find it for a secret service by embassies.I'd like to be friend with you and to have your suggests).I live in Citta' di Castello,and you?).ThanksGlc72 (talk) 14:47, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ooookay. Having seen this message and reviewed your contributions, I guess I don't need anything else. --cyclopiaspeak! 16:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the 3 changes in Italy article.You didn't change anything.Ooookey for what?You did nothing. Glc72 (talk) 16:15, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't want to. If you want to fight your wacky battle, do it yourself. Please do not post on my talk page anymore. Thanks. --cyclopiaspeak! 16:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Sorry explain me better that "wacky".Offending isn't allowed neither by Wikipedia neither by italian law.I want to realize its sense.Glc72 (talk) 16:34, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

FYI

[edit]

[3] --NeilN talk to me 23:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --cyclopiaspeak! 08:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 October 2013

[edit]

Please remove your WP:OR violations

[edit]

You have reinserted [4] content that is in violation of the WP:OR policy. You are WP:SYN inserting a report about common deaths that makes no mention of unusual deaths into a article in which the context is comparing the common deaths of the source to uncommon deaths, an analysis that is NOT in the source. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your interpretation of OR is laughable. There is nothing OR in reporting context, nor there is any synthesis -no conclusion is put forward. Go harass someone else. --cyclopiaspeak! 13:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Its right there in print [[WP:STICKTOSOURCE|"Surce material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context." The WHO is SOLELY talking about common sources of death and to use that to make a comparison to unusual deaths is about as out of context as one could get. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no comparison, no change of meaning or implication, nor any usage inconsistent with the intention of the source. Also the "out of context" issue is about taking a sentence out of context to imply a meaning not intended by the source. In the article, the picture/caption is a nice reminder of "Well, to put this list of uncommon deaths into context, here we remind you what are the common causes, as listed by a very reliable source." That clarified, two questions: 1)Why aren't you discussing this on the article talk page? 2)What part of "Go harass someone else" is not clear? --cyclopiaspeak! 14:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Fuzzy locating system

[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Fuzzy locating system. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 October 2013

[edit]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Racism in Italy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Antimaterialism (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) 08:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ATD

[edit]

I'm not going to keep clogging that conversation with my reply, so I'll put it here. How many times can I bring up issues that can be fixed by editing? How many times can you say "it can be fixed by editing" when it doesn't get fixed? If the article continues to be bad, it doesn't matter how many people say that in theory someone else could fix it: in practice, it cannot be fixed. Efforts to be more rigorous in sourcing seem to have just resulted in people casting a wider net, looking for even mor dubious sources. Do we really need every death from "New of the Weird" reproduced in Wikipedia?—Kww(talk) 13:19, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are we going to go to Mars now or in the foreseeable future? Nope. Does this mean it is impossible to go to Mars? Not at all. Is this a good reason to throw the towel about going to Mars? Not at all, if anything the very opposite. Same here. That it has not been fixed so far (and make no mistake, I fully agree there is a problem with OR) does not mean it will never be fixed or that it is practically impossible to fix it. If we had to kill every article with long standing problems (being them OR, POV or whatever), how many articles would be left on WP? A hundred perhaps? It's in the very nature of WP that we are not going to be perfect. Now, if all the effort you, Pbp, Obiwankenobi, TRPOD etc. put in this endless campaign on multiple fronts to kill this article was instead spent on the article talk page, where I tried a few days ago to draft some criteria, things would be different. I agree with you the current status quo of the article should change. There are genuine concerns. But even if it does not, it is still not an argument for deleton: not by policy, not by common sense, not by overall benefit of the encyclopedia. --cyclopiaspeak! 13:32, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you greatly underestimate the number of worthwhile articles on Wikipedia and the amount of effort required to counteract a few of the editors that have currently taken an interest in the article. I'll try to contribute constructively to discussion, but it became a lost cause when editors began to disrupt the clean-up process.—Kww(talk) 03:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An article can be worthwile and have long-standing issues. Most of them are like that. I personally think this article is one of them; you are free to disagree, but attempting repeatedly to destroy something that many find valuable and proper on WP only because you don't find it as valuable is not a good approach, in my opinion. That's the general problem in deletion discussions: the judgement of someone puts at jeopardy the availability of information for everyone. Of course this does not mean that we should not delete anything: lots of things have to be deleted for many good reasons. It means however that we should approach such controversial edge cases with care and an open mind.--cyclopiaspeak! 10:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scope and title for Bisexuality in the Arab world

[edit]

During the recent AfD for Bisexuality in the Arab world (closed as 'keep') you will either have seen opinions expressed to expand the scope of the article, or voiced that opinion yourself. I am placing this notice on the talk pages of all who expressed an opinion of whatever type in that deletion discussion to invite you to participate in a discussion on article scope and title at Talk:Bisexuality in the Arab world. You are cordially invited to participate. By posting this message I am not seeking to influence your opinion one way or another. Fiddle Faddle 10:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

[edit]

My apologies to bother you here, but I want to be sure you read my message. Last Direktor's post on the Talk page makes me understand two things: 1) He never approved my edit 2) He does not consider necessary to discuss his edit. I might be wrong, but I think that as long he is not clearly assertive (and I am sorry but I doubt he will), there will be always room for unjustified revert. I have already been through that. --Silvio1973 (talk) 06:34, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you'll stay involved over on that article. A third pair of eyes is a great help to any discussion of this sort. And, to be frank, I am at the ends of endurance. -- Director (talk) 11:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@DIREKTOR: - I hope so, I've been terribly busy these days in real life. Hope to get back at it soon.--cyclopiaspeak! 12:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyclopia: In a few days, the article will be again open for modifications and I wander how things will be this time. I hope we will concentrate more on the contributions and less on the contributors. If for some reason you are too busy or not willing to participate to the discussion I will issue a 3O request and a RfC if the first won't work. My bigger problem here is that I brought a large number of sources supporting the fact that pressures had place to force the Italians to leave but this position is qualified as POV-pushing. Well the issue is that so far I have not seen any source saying the opposite. --Silvio1973 (talk) 10:41, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Cyclopia, do you think to have any time to follow the modification on the article. I have little doubt that any modification won't be controversial. So the implication of more people would be very beneficial. I am tempted to start modifying the article again, but I am not doing it because I do not want to take the risk to break this fragile peace. Perhaps in a few days I will enter in the talk page a proposed modification and wait a few days for comments. --Silvio1973 (talk) 11:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 06 November 2013

[edit]

Surnames

[edit]

Hi,

I would appreciate if you could give me your opinion about surname articles.

  • Are all surnames notable enough to be covered by separate articles?
  • There are surnames which have the same origin but different spelling in different languages. For example Čorbadžić. This surname exists in Serbian, Bosniak and Croatian language. The other versions of this surname exist in Turkish language (çorbacı), in Albanian language (Corbaxhiu), in Bulgarian language (Чорбаджи). Should all of them be covered with different articles? Although I am not completely sure, I think they should not, unless there is some particularly notably family with many different family members on specific language. In case of the above mentioned surname the main article should be probably titled per anglicized version with other language version listed in the article and sorted within categories.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea why you are asking me but: as for everything else, just follow sources.--cyclopiaspeak! 21:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I asked you because I was impressed with your involvement in the dispute described a couple of sections above. Thanks for your reply. Cheers!--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of massacres in Germany

[edit]

Hi, in the deletion discussion (requested by me) you wrote : "instead of lifting a finger to actually improve it (or ask people to do it on some relevant Wikiproject) prefers to just erase it?" - while I agree that improvement is better than deletion, this article is not improved by "lifting a finger". As I pointed out, the German article de:Endphasenverbrechen ('end phase crimes') lists more than hundred massacres in 1944/45 alone - I could put hours of work in this, which I don't have at the moment, and the article would still be woefully incomplete, and list only a fraction of Nazi war crimes. -- Seelefant (talk) 20:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is probably very accurate: so what? WP is a collaborative work in progress. I am not saying that you should finish it alone yourself. I am saying that if you think it has to be improved, well, then you can try to start improving it, instead than putting actual effort into destroying it. --cyclopiaspeak! 22:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tag removal

[edit]

Please do not remove tags without first improving the article. Articles with no sources cannot be assumed to automatically be notable pbp 18:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to improve notability wise. The tag is simply nonsense. Please keep the discussion on the article talk page.--cyclopiaspeak! 20:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Until that article gets to FL, there will always be something to improve sourcing-wise. As with unusual deaths and unusual chemical compounds, the fact that it passed an AfD doesn't mean that it's perfect and that editors can't propose changes and/or tag it pbp 21:09, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Go. On. The. Article. Talk. Page. --cyclopiaspeak! 21:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 November 2013

[edit]

Please comment on Talk:Obligate anaerobe

[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Obligate anaerobe. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 November 2013

[edit]

Please comment on Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience

[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 December 2013

[edit]

The Signpost: 11 December 2013

[edit]

Not OR

[edit]

If a cause of death is so common that there is an article on it, it cannot be unusual. Abductive (reasoning) 15:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is unusual is not the immediate death cause, in that case, but all the circumstances around it. And in any case we do not substitute original research, and your argument is textbook WP:OR. We follow what sources say. Please discuss this on article talk page, not here. --cyclopiaspeak! 15:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Use of a primary source when disputed/challenged is against Wikipedia Policy. Stop. Abductive (reasoning) 16:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Funny. You are disputing a source using your own original research, and then I get lectured on sources? Rrrrright. And again, it is the whole context that matters, not the individual cause of death, otherwise we could classify all deaths as obvious, the ultimate cause being always "brain stops working". If you have a better source calling that specific individual case as "mundane" or something like that, then you have a case. Until that, we stick to what the sources we have at hand say. And why are you discussing this here? Please move this to the article talk page. --cyclopiaspeak! 16:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Vought F4U Corsair

[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Vought F4U Corsair. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 December 2013

[edit]

Merry Christmas! :-)

[edit]

Happy Yuletides!

Merry Yuletides to you! (And a happy new year!)


~TheGeneralUser (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hi Cyclopia, Wishing you a very Happy and Wonderful Merry Christmas! Hope you are having a great time with family and friends :-) Best wishes. ~TheGeneralUser (talk) 23:59, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 December 2013

[edit]

Happy New Year Cyclopia!

[edit]
Happy New Year!
Hello Cyclopia:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 11:17, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Please comment on Talk:German acupuncture trials

[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:German acupuncture trials. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 01 January 2014

[edit]

The Signpost: 08 January 2014

[edit]

The Signpost: 15 January 2014

[edit]

Please comment on Talk:Smoke testing

[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Smoke testing. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 January 2014

[edit]

The Signpost: 29 January 2014

[edit]

The Signpost: 29 January 2014

[edit]

Please comment on Talk:Electricity

[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Electricity. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 12 February 2014

[edit]

Please comment on Talk:Auditory hallucination

[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Auditory hallucination. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 19 February 2014

[edit]

The Signpost: 26 February 2014

[edit]

Please comment on Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(test) The Signpost: 05 March 2014

[edit]

The Signpost: 12 March 2014

[edit]

Automobile Engine Replacement

[edit]

Thank you for your attention to my proposed deletion of this article. While I understand your stated desire to curtail overzealous deletions, it might be helpful if specific pages -- particularly ones which receive virtually no attention, link to few/no sources, are orphaned pages, contain little if any information, and cover generally non-notable topics -- just be allowed to go. If it had any useful info I might try merging it with another stub or two, such as Automobile_engine, but it simply doesn't. Frank Mottley (talk) 23:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Mottley, no. Just no. Pages on notable topics that receive no attention should receive more; if they link few sources they should be sourced; if they are orphaned they should be de-orphaned, and if they contain little information they should be expanded. WP:BOLD. That's how WP works: by improving and increasing notable information, not by removing it. We have no deadline and we're a work in progress. Regardless, you cannot re-propose a contested PROD -see WP:PROD. Thanks.--cyclopiaspeak! 05:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 19 March 2014

[edit]

Please comment on Talk:Pathology

[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Pathology. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 March 2014

[edit]

The Signpost: 02 April 2014

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cyclopia/Archive_9&oldid=1168300465"