User talk:Cyclopia/Archive 2

Please Help

Please make a table into which the contents of the articles like this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/(11433)_3474_T-3 could be placed.

We are asking you to do this so that we can merge all of these articles into a table at the bottom of the article on the main belt. The number of separate asteroid articles is becoming a burden on the system and violates notablity standards. Each of these will be merged into the asteroid belt article.

If you can do this, you will be a hero to many. If you can't, we ask that you nominate another for the job. If you would rather not do either, we thank you for taking the time to read this plea. Chrisrus (talk) 17:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Wiki researchers

http://openwetware.org/wiki/Main_Page
in case you were not aware of the site.
GabrielVelasquez (talk) 10:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! --Cyclopia (talk) 22:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Maurizio Gasparri

The changes who I have do there arent's vandalism... it's the true... --Andreaub (talk) 16:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi friend!

What article could we merge Atmospheric beast into? --Againme (talk) 17:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Current discussion....

Feel free to read Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#WP:ENTERTAINER. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 08:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks, but not only I've had already read it, but I am participating to it: is there some point you want to ask/discuss about that discussion? --Cyclopia (talk) 08:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

No... just sent the link. And yes... I now see you have already been at the discussion. Your points are well thought and follow guideline. Best, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 18:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks for contacting me :), I was just a bit puzzled. --Cyclopia (talk) 18:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand... and am sorry to have confused. Continue the good work. Best, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 18:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the Article Rescue Squad!

Here to help articles tagged for rescue! Articles tagged for deletion and rescue Category Articles tagged for deletion and rescue not found Hi, Cyclopia, welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying and rescuing articles that have been tagged for deletion. Every day hundreds of articles are deleted, many rightfully so. But many concern notable subjects and are poorly written, ergo fixable and should not be deleted. We try to help these articles quickly improve and address the concerns of why they are proposed for deletion. This covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated! If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you. And once again - Welcome! -- Banjeboi 10:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

"Sustain" = Habitability & "life" = astrobiology hence, Habitability(astrobiology)

Sorry I was too late to join in discussing your points but I appreciate the effort.
I'm thinking though that the article will get split in half soon anyway.
I'll qualify that when I am more certain. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 10:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
PS: P.H. - GabrielVelasquez (talk) 11:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I would nonetheless kindly ask you to avoid in your edits remarks like these in this diff, which for sure do not assume good faith and border on personal attacks. No matter if I agree or disagree with you, I would prefer for everyone to keep the discussion as nice as possible. This helps everyone. Thanks! --Cyclopia (talk) 11:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Awwh, come on, how is that at personal attack? they are ignoring the first sentence, he did add to your argument (??).GabrielVelasquez (talk) 11:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, the big brain thing; is little brains a compliment?? you're right in principle. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 11:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I personally advice to avoid, in general, most if not all "funny" remarks and sarcasm, to avoid unnecessarily heating the debate. --Cyclopia (talk) 12:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

"Most Logical, Captain." - Spock (talk)

Honey, if you think you can reason with this guy, just see what he wrote on my talk page. Serendi^podous 15:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Serendipodous, I know very well GV's behaviour. When debating on the Gliese 581 c page I contributed in bringing him to AN/I (see here), but that time no one stepped in to comment. Regardless, I thought there is nothing wrong in giving someone another chance, and asking him again politely to avoid attacks and to assume good faith. If there's material for arbitration, let me know. --Cyclopia (talk) 15:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

GNU Hurd

I did consider editing rather than reverting Golftheman's recent edits to this article, but frankly, I couldn't really find anything that was worth keeping. My objections were as follows:

• It is more accurate to describe Hurd as a kernel, than an OS
• the appropriate article to include references for the definition of the term microkernel is microkernel
• the distinction between the Linux kernel, and Linux as an OS has been confused
• the term monolithic kernel is well-known and defined; "monolithic OS" is not
• the English was not to encyclopedic standard

In short, these edits did not really improve the article, IMHO.

Letdorf (talk) 12:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC).

Administrators' noticeboard/incidents

Hello user Cyclopia. Now that the ANI administrators dismissed your complaints (POV) in the face of scientific evidence, I hope you will adjust your attitude accordingly re: Geysers on Mars. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 11:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

May you link where the admins took position on the case? I am not at home these days and check WP not regularly. Thanks. --Cyclopia (talk) 11:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me the issue in ANI was dismissed becaused it was archived without further comment.

Show your good faith by leaving the title as "Geysers on Mars", and I will show mine by engaging your concerns and thoughts on the sources or as you say: the way they are interpreted. The article is a newborn, by no means finished and has room for a lot improvement; if I did mistakes I want to know and I want them corrected, no pride involved, after all we are anonymous users. I always wanted to do the merge and development in synergy with another editor(s), not in confrontation, that is why I placed the merge tag and waited for someone; I even put an "add" in the Geology of Mars talk page inviting people to chip in.

I have really studied all papers used as sources and I have no desire to twist their conclusions, but the literature is complex and I am aware I may have have done some mistakes; as a researcher myself I am trully concerned with accuracy before my own opinion or instinct, so I am open to archive the old talk page and re-engage you in a most cordial and symbiotic manner. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:FRANKIE

Databases are usually inconsistent probably because the information included is found in the credits (and in some cases like IMDb, the information can be added by anyone) and that does not exclude the possibility that credits with the same name in different movies belong to different people who has the same name or who is credited with the same name. For instance, IMDb itself admits inconsistencies: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. See also EGAFD: [8], Almovie: [9], IAFD: [10]. Algébrico (talk) 17:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, but I am completely aware of that. I was asking about the specific case we were talking about on the AfD. --Cyclopia (talk) 17:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Cyclopia. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Felicity Barr.
Message added 06:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ƒ(Δ)² 06:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to be seen as badgering people with differing viewpoints. Anyway, it is not of much consequence, and I rather doubt we'll get those many opinions. AfD is very, very backlogged nowadays. ƒ(Δ)² 11:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's one of the reasons I'm buzzy there in this period. Thanks! --Cyclopia (talk) 11:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

STOP IT, AND STOP IT NOW

Forums are never acceptable as sources in Wikipedia articles. I advise you to stop. JBsupreme (talk) 15:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

First of all, you are not entitled to shout at me and giving me orders. Please read WP:CIVIL. Second: I agree that in most cases forums are not acceptable as sources. In the case we're discussing about (Parchive) however 1)a development forum on SF is actually a good primary source, and as such legit, since it's not just a random opinion bin but it's the discussion place where official software development takes place 2)one must keep in mind that open source software develops along avenues that are not always mainstream, and as such apply a bit of commonsense and elasticity. In any case, I agree that that specific link there made little sense: not because it is a forum, but because not really informative. --Cyclopia (talk) 16:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

AfD, WR, and other stuff

Hey Cyclopia, since that AN/I request got shut down pretty quickly and no one (it seems, didn't check the history) actually talked with you about what was going on, I figured I would drop by. WR (as you can tell neatly enough from their wikpedia article) is a forum nominally devoted to BLPs on wikipedia. The original notion was to highlight wikipedia's irresponsibility with BLPs that many people thought was going unnoticed. In a sense, they try to act as a counter to the inherent structural disadvantage BLP subjects are paced in. Anyone can make an article on wikipedia and with a little effort someone can make a pretty biased or harmful article about a subject, even if that person means well. We have hundreds of articles on private citizens who were involved in gaffes, scandals or curiosities which are kept on wikipedia by dint of two effects: 1. that the rate of creation exceeds the rate of monitoring, 2. that we have a tendency to offer the benefit of the doubt to seemingly sourced material. WR hopes to bring together people who feel that the possible danger from those BLPs outweights the small benefit we gain from keeping them (that's the view at least as deletion goes, there are strong inclusionists on WR and people who feel that editing and protection are solutions rather then deletion, and so forth).

Is it canvassing? Eh. It would probably be seen as canvassing if there were a similar project on wikipedia itself (arguably one reason why WR is not on wikipedia), but that is in doubt. Canvassing assumes that the intended recipients are like minded, which is probably true with respect to BLPs on WR but isn't necessarily true. Canvassing also requires (in my opinion, though not really written into the policy) that the forum being used to canvass isn't otherwise inappropriate for the message. In other words, a forum thread on some video game site isn't really about video game articles on wikipedia, it is about video games. When a post shows up there complaining about an AfD or imploring people to insert a given edit, there is cause for concern (though not as much as we tend to apply--we are normally not very nice to people who come here from forums). Threads on BLPs at WR are just that: threads about BLPs. It is totally within the normal scope of discussion for those folks to talk about this BLP problem or that AfD. Lastly, I want to echo a point that was made and overstated in that AN/I thread. The post on WR wasn't really a call to action, like so many offsite canvassing posts are. It pointed people to the AfD and said "boy this is fucked up". Obviously there is something of a quid pro quo going on, the expectation is that people will see the thread, the article, and then the afd, voting to delete, but the process isn't mechanical.

I wouldn't worry too much about who edits here and posts there. A long time ago WR was a "badsite", and editors were banned or hassled for posting there. As a result, we lost a lot of editors and we forced others into anonymity on WR. I don't know if that is good or bad but we have a mix of editors who post a lot on WR and edit a little here, edit a lot here and post a little there and any other combination you can imagine. You might want to go check it out, watch a few threads, find out what is going on there. It may be an environment which appeals to you and it may not. But it can't hurt to have a look. Let me know if you have any questions or need any help. Protonk (talk) 19:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Protonk, I'm sorry if in all the mess of today (not only WP-related) I missed your beautiful and very helpful post.

I personally think that a website recruiting like-minded on WP is much more canvassing (or at least at risk of creating problematic situations) than a "neutral" forum when someone decides to go canvassing once in a lifetime.

I am not worried about people posting there per se (heh, I am posting there right now, because I thought it was a nice gesture trying to talk with them, and even if some of them are a bit blunt, it is going nicer than I thought). Posting on WR should not be a reason for banning or hassling. But I was really worried by the lack of disclosure. All you have said about the quid pro quo is more or less fine (it is a really fine line anyway, but I can live with that), but what should happen is just saying "Hey, we just noticed this on WR , see link". It would have been much better and I would not have been almost worried.

The point is: WP should be an open process. If editors and admins discuss an article, and AfD etc., they should do it on the AfD or the article talk page. If they want to do it on another forum, I can grudgingly agree, but etiquette should require, IMHO, to notice people that discussion is going on there, too, so that anyone (even a complete newbie) can know what's going on under the hood. --Cyclopia (talk) 23:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that in a better world someone would say "hey I came here because of this thread on WR", but there is that fear about reprisal and harassment for bringing WR into the equation. As for your first paragraph I do think this situation (or any one where a BLP discussion gets a thread on WR) exists in a gray area. Acknowledging that leads us to some weird solutions. We could treat it as canvassing...but then we are actually powerless to stop the thread itself, so we would have to prevent participants in the thread from responding to the debate (via social or technical measures). That's both infeasible and a little crazy. Or we could treat it as not canvassing...but that has the unpleasant impact of tacitly suggesting that people interested in canvassing (or things that look like canvassing) should go offsite. And I'm not sure we want that (we may, I'm just not sure). So we are kinda placed in a really indeterminate situation. In cases like that, I think it helps to do what you are doing now, talking to the folks directly. I'm glad this is working out better then it was this morning. Protonk (talk) 00:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Miriam Sakewitz

Unless you wish to lose your ability to use Twinkle, I suggest you never again make an edit like this one. My edit was not vandalism, and referring to it as such is a personal attack. Black Kite 19:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Ehm, you deleted a perfectly legit tag which should not be deleted until AfD is closed, with the only edit summary "just...no". This looked like vandalism to me. I agree I maybe overreacted, I am sorry if you felt attacked. But please leave the tag alone too, ok? I apologize. --Cyclopia (talk) 19:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't really care about the tag, to be honest - I removed it because I felt that it didn't really fall under the rescue guidelines. The reason it has been AfD'd is per BLP, BLP1E and NOT#NEWS issues, so the usual activites of the ARS (finding sources, for example) don't really apply here. Black Kite 19:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the (admittely overwhelming) AfD, you'll find there's also concerns about the sources for notability, that's why I tagged the article. --Cyclopia (talk) 19:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Possibly, but that's not the reason that'll it'll be deleted (if indeed it is). Black Kite 19:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, most delete !votes continue to claim that's BLP1E and that's covered only by local sources, even if it's obvious that it is not. Better sourcing would help. --Cyclopia (talk) 19:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing has nothing to do with it. The information presented in a biographical article is inappropriate in this circumstance. Create an article about Crime in Oregon and mentioning her case is appropriate. If you are as ambitious as I think you in coveirng the sum of all knolwedge I ask why you don't want to create an article about Crime in Oregon which if wirrten comprehensively would make a fascinating read I'm sure. Himalayan 21:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Because I have no knowledge on that, and I would not be the best person to do it. And the point is not covering crime in Oregon, the point is avoiding valuable (yes, valuable) information to get lost forever for so-called "ethical" reasons. Any other kind of edit can usually be reverted, but deletion is (almost) forever. --Cyclopia (talk) 21:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Do some web research and you'll find an abundance of sources. I ask why wikipedia the encyclopedia has no information about crime rates in Oregon yet we have an article about one women you froze rabbits. Himalayan 21:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, go and do that. I have my TODO list. I have no interest in doing such an article. I have interest however that, when someone will step up to do such an article and source it well, no one will keep it down for personal distaste reasons. --Cyclopia (talk) 21:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Personal disaste? Those of us with more encyclopedic interests choose to start compiling an article here. That is because we are missing an article about crime in this state which an encyclopedia should have. Yet we have newspaper stories about a sad woman who froze some rabbits and yay that gets priority above even basic fino about crime in the entire state? A true encyclopedian would try to make the best out of every situation and compile sources into a much braoder and comprehensive approach to the subject. Meaning that a much more informative article could be writtne in general and mention this womens case within it. That is a much more intelligent way to do it rather than just treating us as a newspaper. Himalayan 22:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Do your best and I am happy of your effort, but you won't drag me helping on that now (even if I could do it in future, and I'm going to put your page on my watchlist just in case). The problem of that deletion was not coverage of Oregon crime, but loss of information in general. Thanks for discussion. --Cyclopia (talk) 22:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between ethics and distaste. It was unethical to create the article in the first place. It was distasteful to put it on the main page. It was premature to dismiss WR as a partisan canvass, and it was over-the-top to ask editors to disclose if they have accounts on Wikipedia Review.

Reporters report the news. Encyclopedias report what is and will be relevant in centuries to come, if notability is indeed everlasting. It is the fact that we are in no hurry to get 'the latest scoop' that affords us time to sit and incorporate ethics into our decisions. You may be surprised to learn that one of the ethics of journalism is Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity. Dropping your ethics at the door when you log into Wikipedia is nothing that ever occurred to me, and I don't need policy to remind me that doing so is a bad idea. Law _{type! snype?} 22:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Law.

To your first post:

• 1. Ethics and taste are pretty the same thing in this context. Everyone has one (I have too), but everyone's irremediably subjective. Your POV is that it was unethical, mine is that it wasn't and that it is by far more unethical deleting it. You're more than entitled to think it was unethical (and I understand some of the reasons behind that), but it's not a fact: it's your POV.
• 2. To put it on main page could have been indeed questionable. I have no strong opinions on that, but it's another story.
• 3. WR is by any standard explicitly, proudly partisan (just read the FAQs, the blog etc.) and what happened is, in my opinion, pure canvass (even if maybe in good faith). I acknowledge that unfortunately most admins dismissed that, but I strongly disagree that it is a non-problem. A club of like-minded editors discussing WP intervention on a non-WP forum without disclosing it in the relevant WP discussion page in my opinion is utterly against the spirit of openness and NPOV of WP. WR itself is not a problem (there are also grains of useful criticism within); discussing on WR behind closed doors (ok, technically not closed, but unless you know where to look and peek into it, you'll never know) I think it is.
• 4. Asking disclosure on a discussion relative to WR was the bare minimum required by conflict of interest. There is no reasonable justification for editors not to disclose they have an account on WR. Again, the behaviour of most editors and the swift closure of the AN/I is suspicious. I can't but think that, and I feel sorry because I usually strive to AGF. But not disclosing makes no sense whatsoever. If you have no conflict of interest, why not disclosing it? If you are on WR, why not disclosing it? What's wrong in being on WR, so much that it is kept as private information? I'd say nothing, but why editors disagreed?

To the second:

• 1. I wholeheartedly agree that report what is and will be relevant in centuries to come, if notability is indeed everlasting.. That's why I endorse information to be kept: because I have the thin hope that WP content will be, in some form, present in centuries to come. If something was notable here and now, it is worth to be kept, because it will document our age possibly forever.
• 2. Incorporating ethics is , at least in borderline cases like this one, incorporating POV.
• 3. "Lurid curiosity" is POV. I don't care if journalists subscribe to such POV. I know of curiosity, without adjectives. You will be amused in discovering that my nickname comes from the fascination I had, as a teenager, with human malformations. This fascination led me to study molecular biology, and then pursue an academic career (even if not on malformations). What are "lurid subjects" are often windows into the most interesting realms of nature. The molecular biology behind human malformations is plain wonderful and such studies are one of the key pillars of modern evo-devo.
• 4. I don't "drop it at the door". I have it, but I strive not to be (too much) influenced by it. It doesn't mean I become a relentless machine to do harm. It means that, if undecided, I try my emotions not get into the process and think rationally.--Cyclopia (talk) 22:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The article Miriam Sakewitz has been preserved intact, and it available for further editing should you wish, at this spot on Knol.Wjhonson (talk) 03:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Maura Murray

Hi, I don't normally badger people who disagree with me at AfD, but in this case would you mind looking at the sources I've found covering the disappearance of Maura Murray? I'm fairly sure that they demonstrate the notability of this case. I'd tidied up the article after the last AfD, but I neglected to suggest a name change to refocus on the case rather than the individual or to include more sources, apologies. Fences&Windows 00:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks a lot! Your sources seem worthwile. I changed my !vote. --Cyclopia (talk) 00:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Rationales

• Predator fish (AfD discussion)
• Predatory fish (AfD discussion)

There's a lot of discussion of what "the participants in the prior AFD discussion" meant. As one of the actual participants in that first AFD discussion, perhaps you would like to visit the second AFD discussion to make it clear what your view was, and is now. Uncle G (talk) 00:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! --Cycl^opia - ^talk 01:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

HI again Cyclopia

Funny how we always seem to bump into each other when I'm going through a crisis. :-) Maybe that's just a reflection of the number of crises I've had recently. Serendi^podous 15:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I'm sorry for your crisis -what's going on? Anyway, I am also very sorry for that table that I left there rotting :( As for crisis, well, better not to talk about what's going on at my workplace these days. Brrr. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 15:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I meant being slapped with an AfD out of the blue. :-) Don't worry about that table. Once List of Solar System objects by size is finished, which will be sometime before the dawn of the fourth millennium, I will create it anyway. It should be relatively easy, and could possibly be done automatically, if the right program could be found. Serendi^podous 13:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

(Warning: Extremly debatable opinion following) There is an ongoing pattern of people AfD'ing stuff without real reasons, only because they have their own ideas on what has to go in an encyclopedia and slashing everything else basically on the basis of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The current BLP scare only worsens that problem, with people using BLP concerns as a club to smash even absolutely innocent and notable articles. It's very worrying in my opinion, because once deleted it is quite hard to put things back, while it seems there's no limit to how many AfD can be nominated on the same article -this means that if one pushes hard enough, sooner or later anything will be deleted by sheer statistics :). --Cycl^opia - ^talk 13:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest a rule of triple jeopardy, that after an article has been nominated for deletion three times and survived a fair hearing each time, it cannot be listed for deletion again without going through a separate, higher committee first. Such pages could be tagged as "deletion protected." Serendi^podous 14:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Missed this suggestion of yours. Seems very good -we can draft it a bit? --Cycl^opia - ^talk 14:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Tamara Bach proposed for deletion

Thank you for your comments on the Tamara Bach deletion discussion.--DThomsen8 (talk) 18:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 23:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion about bibliography articles

Hi Cyclopia,

I know you were involved in a previous discussion on this topic and thought you might be interested in participating here.

Happy editing,

Neelix (talk) 15:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:INC

Thanks for joining WP:INC, we need more editors like you. I'm re-working that Wikiproject, including maybe making a banner with current interesting discussions, so if you see any particularly ridiculous AfDs, tell the whole community on the talk page. Cheers - Draeco (talk) 15:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Draeco. I am a bit unsure about telling on the talk page -couldn't this be taken as improper canvassing? I sometimes tag for ARS, but it's different I think. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 15:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Hm, good point. I'll think about it. - Draeco (talk) 16:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The problem is that, despite WP:IAR, playing by the rules to stay safe is always a good idea to avoid escalating touchy discussions. I'd say it is fine as long as it is not stealth: if I openly declare on the AfD what I am doing, it should be fine. But WP:CANVASSING disagrees (biased audience etc.) Also we should see if other "factions" (deletionists etc.) do the same or not. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 16:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

However open, it could run afoul of the partisan/non-partisan distinction and be called votestacking. It's been done on the INC and DEL Wikiprojects both, but only sporadically by isolated editors, so it never raised a ruckus. What I envision certainly would. I think declaring your actions and cross-posting at WikiProject Deletion would be remedies. But I'm so passionate about Wikipedia and its lifeblood of Inclusion that I'm starting not to care. I'm driven by the highest goal (improving Wikipedia as a whole) and the other rules seem secondary. Plus it's not morally sound to say "I should hold back if the opposition is" but "if they do it too, then it's okay." - Draeco (talk) 13:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

"Starting not to care" is, in my opinion, the road to ruin :) , because sooner or later it will lead to escalate and problems with editors, admins, whatever. I now posted something on WP:INC talk page, and disclosed it; I've checked and seen that deletionists do the same routinely without anyone complaining, so I feel safer -let's see. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 13:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

List of headphone manufacturers

Rather than just remove the prod, please improve the article to address the concerns in the prod. This article still is am unreferenced list of only a handful of manufacturers and isn't even as complete as the Headphone manufacturers category. If you feel this article has promise please edit it providing it a push in the direction you think it has potential to go in rather than just removing the proposed deletion.--RadioFan (talk) 14:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not an expert on the subject; it's unlikely I am the right guy to expand the article. What I am sure enough is however that the list has potential and that there is no reason whatsoever to delete it. If you delete it, no one will expand it; by keeping it someone could do it. It's all what WP is about, isn't it? --Cycl^opia - ^talk 14:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way: I am currently removing lots of PRODs every day. It doesn't mean I am an expert on each subject I deprod (most likely not), it only means that a given article is not probably an obvious candidate for deletion, at least not without a proper debate. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 14:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Life on Another Planet

Hello! Your submission of Life on Another Planet at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Geraldk (talk) 21:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I've responded to your questions at the article's nomination. Geraldk (talk) 22:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I suspect it is just a bit to early as it does need a lot more out-of-universe material (and possibly trimming the plot back a bit) and more sources.

Personally I'd remove the influences section as it has the whiff of original research unless someone can find a source to show it was an influence on Carl Sagan (feel free to move it to the talk page as it'll be easier to get it sourced that way).

I always like to see more background on the creation - in this case Eisner's thoughts on the title, influences on his, etc.

It also needs a reception section for reviews and the like. It may be there is a review which points out the parallels with Contact, which would be a legitimate way of including that information. You have one from Comics Bulletin which should be useful (and probably shouldn't be used as a source for that quote - it seems to be the kind of thing printed on the backs of books and may not be the kind of thing we usually use, although if it comes from a more detailed study then source it from that) and there are others around: [11].

Also Google Books and Google Scholar might be useful and, even if you can't find the sources yourself post on Talk: Will Eisner and WT:CMC and we can often find someone who can get their hands on it.

I think if the article can be rounded out and given a polish it should be in a good position to submit to DYK and it will be in good shape for making it to a B too. (Emperor (talk) 14:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC))

Thanks a lot. I removed the OR paragraph (I was sure of having read it somewhere, but indeed I can't find sources, and better safe than sorry), even if the coincidence is probably notable. I'd like too to improve it as you said, but I can find little on Gbooks -or better, there is evidence of some coverage but no access to relevant pages. The reviews, I used them, but I am not sure of what sites are considered good comic review sites, and many reviews will probably date from the '80s and '90s, as such not easy to find on the web. I will ask on the talk page of Eisner as you suggested and I'll try to have a look on Gscholar. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 14:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Boba Phat

Hi Cyclopia,

I just wanted to thank you for your helping to support the notability of the Boba Phat article. It is clear that there IS quite a bit of significant sourcing; I am fully appreciative of your adding your 2¢ to help support this from an objective standpoint.

Very Best, SheighZam (talk) 12:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. If you want to do something good, please check WP:PRODSUM and the AfD log, and help articles being saved from the jaws of deletion :) --Cycl^opia - ^talk 14:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for the great advice. I can already tell that they have an agenda against Wikipedia on the WR forum. I initially only found out about it and went there because at the top of this AfD page, someone had put the note "Note: This AfD is being debated by editors in an external forum" with a link to that site. Having no clue as to the ins and outs of the weird world of Wikipedia, I went there figuring I could plead my case & get feedback. The very first thing I encountered was someone accusing me of trolling! You are very right in your advice - I can see that already from my limited time on the site. Still may have some fun with them though - doesn't hurt to know the mindset of the opposition in order to be better at fighting an uphill battle!

I will take a look at your suggested WP:PRODSUM and the AfD log. Anything that can help with is worthy of my being educated, and if I can assist there in any way, I sure will. Wikipedia is based on a cultural, ever-changing landscape - it is no Encyclopedia Britannica, that's for sure. I absolutely know without a doubt that my Boba Phat article displays WAY more notability than a good number of the articles already approved on Wikipedia, and once I win this debate, I surely intend to help others in the same boat! Again, I fully appreciate your support of my cause. I think its very nice of you to assist; it helps me see that my argument is certainly not in vain. It's all very confusing, but people like you help me with simple suggestions, for which I am very grateful.

Thanks again, Cyclopia - you are a saint! SheighZam (talk) 20:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The "someone" who put the note was me. I lurk WR and whenever I found they discuss an AfD I put that note. I do that for the sake of transparency -I believe WP should be an open process, and I dislike the fact editors discuss articles and deletions outside of WP without giving notice.

And no, thank you a lot :) , but I am not a saint. It's just that I believe that a community-driven Internet encyclopedia should have a much wider scope than a paper encyclopedia (see WP:NOTPAPER), but unfortunately many people still reason like we were 1910's Britannica. I have my biases and my point of view is as debatable as that of everyone, but I try to help. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 22:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Your Experience with Deletionist Crew

Tell me more if you wish of your views and experiences with groups of editors forcing their ideals. What is the WR? I have had a similar experience with my very first article, and almost again with the second. I too have noticed an unfair advantage certain groups have when they block vote and sway opinion. A few of them may be ok people/editors, but I disagree with what occurs and it should be dealt with somehow.... Turqoise127 (talk) 23:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Turquoise. It is a delicate matter. First of all, please always WP:AGF: the "deletionist crew" is mostly made of nice, valuable editors and admins which simply happen to have a different opinion on what is good for WP. I find deletionist stances in general to be highly disruptive and a concern for the project, but this does not mean they must not be respected, even if arguing strongly against their positions. As for Wikipedia Review, well, it's an idiosyncratic forum of WP editors, ex-editors and commentators which happen to have a strong critical stance on many aspects of WP -most notably, its treatment of biographies of living people. Sometimes they discuss AfDs and articles there, and I happened to think this amounts a bit to WP:CANVASSING, but admins herein disagreed. Discussing with them, well, I found it hard (many of them have a penchant for calling you a troll or thinking you have a hidden agenda from the start) but having an idea of their opinions and lurking their forum is a good idea; it gives a perspective on the ideas and criticisms -some of which I find meaningful, many of them I find not- of an important part of WP editors. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 23:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, by all means, WP:AGF. I totally agree with you that most of the editors discussed here are valuable editors. Heck, I really like one that was the main culprit on deleting my first article. Be that as it may, we can never be sure about motivations of groups of deletionists (I am speaking in general terms). They could be just wanting to improve Wiki and have different views on how, but also in time they may see the power they have as groups and more or less decide what is included and what is not. It's definitely a delicate issue as you say and a hot topic. I read your essay on the topic and I really like it. Thank you for your insight. Turqoise127 (talk) 19:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

there is a deletionist crew? Protonk (talk) 00:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course! Haven't you seen them getting all the cool girls in town? :D --Cycl^opia - ^talk 23:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Parchive

Re: Parchive, JBsupreme (talk · contribs · logs) has a personal vendetta against the article since the failed RfD. 69.138.72.217 (talk) 01:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I happen to agree with 69.138.72.217 in that the {{Unreferenced section}} template was added strictly as a "hey look what I can still do!" move. Per WP:OVERTAGGING the {{Refimprove}} at the top of the article is enough and there is no need for an {{Unreferenced section}} template in the first section under the article lead. I did not remove it myself as that is exactly what User:JBsupreme wanted as he added it to try to bait one of us into edit warring with him.
Truth of the matter is, the earlier disruptive behaviour by these editors was well documented on AN/I here and if the editors involved attempt to restart their campaign of harassment and disruption I won't hesitate to update and reopen that AN/I discussion as I warned one of them yesterday [12] (which they immediately removed [13]).
--Tothwolf (talk) 03:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Treaty of Simulambuco

Thanks for your contribution on the deletion debate. I added the references and tagged it for rescue. I had other things I should have been doing this afternoon but it seemed so obvious that it was a keep, and could be improved fairly easily, that I stopped applying for work and improved it. --Alchemist Jack (talk) 16:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

dont worry too much about prod being dangerous. I think its perhaps even less erratic than AfD. 2 or 3 other good people besides yourself check every item, & so do I, though at different times and perhaps looking for different things. But very glad to have the help. DGG ( talk ) 23:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

You're more than welcome! --Cycl^opia - ^talk 00:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

A note

Is it at all possible for you to accept arguments at face value, rather than argue with everyone who disagrees with your opinion? Kevin (talk) 00:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

1) I argue with "everyone" who disagrees without actually bringing reasonable arguments to the table. Everytime someone heads up at an AfD and finds nothing better to say than "it is not encyclopedic". This makes kitten cry. WP:UNENCYC and WP:IDONTLIKEIT say what there is to say quite well, but anyway: why it is unencyclopedic? What does "unencyclopedic/encyclopedic" mean for you? The point is: either you elaborate your claims (i.e. by saying it is against some policy/guidelines, which are WP definitions of encyclopedicity) or saying that something is not encyclopedic means absolutely, utterly nothing. But alas, it sounds well to many ears, because it makes people think of paper encyclopedias and makes them translate criteria of paper encyclopedia to an encyclopedia which is not made of paper. As such, I feel such pseudo-arguments cannot be let go unchallenged. They are made in absolute good faith, I am sure: but they are dangerous, because basically amount to a more palatable way of saying IDONTLIKEIT.

2) It's not my habit to take things "at face value". I am actually a researcher in RL - I am paid to not take things at face value. Sorry if this leaks outside my lab :)

3) They always say that AfD is not voting but discussion. So, what's wrong in discussing opinions? A lot of people politely argue against my !votes and arguments, and it's absolutely OK to do so, so what's wrong with me doing that?

I hope it helps. Thanks for your comment. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 00:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to add to Kevin's comment - and your return. I am also a researcher in my everyday life and so I actually find it very interesting that you state that you are a researcher in your response above. Indeed your assertion of your real life job made me look at your user page. I note that you offer that you are a Phd recipient and also that you make a very combative statement on your user page regarding AfD's. To be frank (I am not trying to be rude) it strikes me that you seem never to accept any argument except your own, and that you simply nit-pick every single comment etc for the sake of the argument rather than in attempting to reach any form of workable conclusion; again, other than your own - even if it is one that lets others have their valid opinion left in peace, and for you to move on. Your actions are not an act of discussion - they are an act of bludgeoning the opposition. You seem not to be able to stop editing for "the final word" and with respect, to my mind that is disruptive and does more damage than good - especially when most of the arguments at wiki are qualitative. I wonder whether that is a valid use of the skills you say you hold - or is it just that you want to beat the "deletionist wrath?"--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 22:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Bachmann

Cyclopedia, do you honestly mean to infer that the juxtaposition of an action or position with fundraising figures is not going to result in a perception of influence? Come on now, let's be reasonable. Trilemma (talk) 01:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

It is sourced information. It states a fact in the relevant section and which is relevant to the. It is neutrally presented. If it results in a "perception of influence" or not, therefore, becomes irrelevant, because it is not a matter of NPOV but only a matter of readers making up their mind from facts. We're not here to hide relevant facts. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 08:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not a question of whether or not it is sourced information. It is a question of how the composition of the article will lead people to come to conclusions. If you think it's relevant, then we should have a fundraising section. The section is not for her fundraising figures, it is for her actions as a congresswoman. Trilemma (talk) 13:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you mean but I am not sure if I can agree -a fundraising section can be OK but isn't fundrising a part of her actions in congress? (Just for the sake of consistence, can we move this discussion on the Bachmann talk page?) --Cycl^opia - ^talk 13:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I've put up another reply on there on the subject. Trilemma (talk) 00:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Cambridge meetup 14 November

Another Cambridge meetup is planned for the afternoon of Saturday 14 November. Please contribute to the page and come along if you can. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! :) --Cycl^opia - ^talk 09:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Need your opinion on some photographs

Hi. Can you provide you opinion on this matter? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how to fix contrast/saturation. Can you do that for me? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 16:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Life on Another Planet (graphic novel)

On October 23, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Life on Another Planet (graphic novel), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Jake Wartenberg 01:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Diabetes mellitus

You recently gave a third opinion on Diabetes mellitus. I am having real trouble working with the IP editor. They continue to make accusations on my talk page, revert without getting consensus, and ignore attempts at communication. I have not had a dispute go this far before and would appreciate advice on how to handle this situation. As I have communicated to the IP editor, I am more than willing to work on this in a civil manner, but it is becoming very difficult considering the venom that is being directed at me. Please let me know what I should be doing to defuse this situation. Thank you again for your help. Wperdue (talk) 06:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for asking. I guess the best course of action is not taking it personally and trying to act firmly but as politely as possible, to give no excuse for escalating the debate. That said, I've cited the relevant policy on academic consensus on the diabetes mellitus talk page. I hope the guy is just a young and excited student which is unfamiliar with how WP works and feels sincerely puzzled of what's going on. Of course if there is a repeated edit war and personal attacks, there are the relevant noticeboards to use. --Cyclopia^talk 12:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your help on this. As I was reading the ongoing discussion on the talk page, I had a glimmer of hope until the vandal accusations started flying again. I agree that some of the assertions made by the IP editor may, in fact, be true. I was only pushing for better sources and obviously failed to communicate that fact in a manner which they could understand. I don't know how to adequately get across that there isn't some great conspiracy on Wikipedia to censor this information that is furthered by the pharmaceutical industry. I am neither a doctor, researcher, or employee of a pharmaceutical company. The only reason I watch this article is that it has been the target of vandalism and unsourced information quite often. Thanks again for your help, and I hope it does not take up too much of your time. Wperdue (talk) 16:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Polyacrylamide gel for RNA

Hi, I'am an italian guy and I'm doing my PhD in Czech Republic, I must perform polyacrylamide gels in order to detect plant siRNAs, up to now I was not successful, cauld you give me some suggestion in order to optimize the Norther Blot? Thanx, Bye

PS: I've edited the diabetes mellitus page, say me if you like it please. I also guess it should be better to add another paragraph (something like "hormones strongly involved on the insulin sensitivity"...or simply "endocrinology") —Preceding unsigned comment added by Testosterone vs diabetes (talk • contribs) 20:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Italian you too? Piacere di conoscerti, collega. Mi dispiace che il nostro primo incontro sia stato un po', come dire, "problematico". I will continue writing in English here because that's an open page of the English wiki, and I don't want to give the impression of "secret talk" to people who don't know Italian.

That said, I unfortunately can't help you with the Northern blot, since that's definitely not my expertise. I worked on force spectroscopy and now I just begun working on molecular dynamics and fluorescence stuff, and I don't do a blot since when I was a student. Only thing coming to my mind... I know RNA is a bitch to work with because RNases are ubiquitous, could it be a RNase contamination? --Cyclopia^talk 21:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, se vuoi scrivermi una mail, devicerandom [at] gmail [dot] com. --Cyclopia^talk 21:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

List of religious organizations

The first thing I would do with this list is to determine its exact scope. "Religious organizations" is an almost uselessly broad phrase. I think that there would be reasonable grounds for separating it into religious social service organizations of one sort or another and other general organizations more clearly associated with the religions. Then, there is a very real chance that there might be further subdivision required. I imagine, for instance, that all religious orders would theoretically qualify for inclusion, but would probably be best used in separate articles for the religious orders of individual faiths or religions. There could of course be links to these other pages in this article. But I very, very much believe that the first priority would probably be to determine which kinds of organizations are covered by these lists, which lists they should individually be placed on, and, ultimately, how many lists there are. I think you might be able to find reasonable lists for some Christian faiths in yearbooks or such for those denominations. I'm less sure where to get information on some of the other faiths though. John Carter (talk) 23:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, now I am using the relevant categories (see Category:Religion organizations. Now the list is not much better than the cat, but there is room to include more information in the list and maybe make it a sortable table or such, so that it becomes an useful aid.

As per the broad scope, I agree. I think we should discuss on the relevant talk page about all of that however. Thank you! --Cyclopia^talk 00:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

List o' religious orgs

Whenever I looked at the list, I just didn't know how to help it at all, it seemed so hopeless. I'm glad that you were able to organize it and make it somewhat respectable. As I noted on Talk:List_of_religious_organizations (after my nomination for deletion in June resulted in no consensus) there are still a lot of questions that need to be answered in order to outline what the list covers.

I still wouldn't know the first place to start in improving the list, but would be happy to help. Let me know if you have some specific task for me to do. ...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 01:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I must say I've beginning to find entertaining to work on the list, the number of weird religious organizations existing is simply amazing. I'd say we need to:

• Find a proper scope for the list (see comment by editor above) -what is an organization, what not, etc.
• Decide how to classify organizations -now I've done it by faith, but I am not convinced that is all, I think we should need multiple criteria and a proper table
• Decide what info is going in the list and what not, if we want to make a proper table with some information etc. which makes it better than a category-on-steroids

The good startpoint is, in my opinion, the Category:Religion organizations and its daedalus of subcats (which really makes the list useful, because it is hell to navigate). It's tons of articles and therefore a lot of work, but it's a learning experience (especially for a good ol'atheist like me). --Cyclopia^talk 01:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll be joining you in this effort. So do let me know what I can do. I think I'll be of most use in finding smaller more narrowly focused religious org related lists that Wikipedia already has and incorporating their content into this more widely focused parent list. --Devin Murphy (talk) 06:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to do that!--Cyclopia^talk 12:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The new guru has a prediction

Here you go: ... if you don't stop using terms like "messiah" and "guru" when referring to me, you're going to be raised as someone who's being disruptive. There is no need for your hyperbole so I'd kindly request you to stop. ++Lar: t/c 14:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Right, and sorry for the sarcasm. It won't happen anymore. It's just that the way you present your stance was a bit weird. --Cyclopia^talk 15:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. In turn I'll be careful to make sure it's clear I am speaking for myself without any special "moral authority" (beyond that given by my life experience and the level of trust I hold in the community)... although I do think I am not alone in thinking that we should err on the safe side and try to do the right thing, that it's more important to avoid harm, even if at the cost of mistakenly omitting some non problematic bios, than to include everything we probably should include but at the cost of including some things we should not. Better 10 guilty men walk free than one innocent man suffer, so to speak (not an exact analogy). Best. ++Lar: t/c 15:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Cyclopia, I'd also like to request that you not post so frequently to the various discussions taking place. Please see WP:NOTAFORUM. Your views are already clear and I think you're not doing yourself any favors by adding so much. thanks, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't get it. It is supposed to be a discussion, and contributing to discussions means to evaluate claims and counter them if appropriate. I don't see how WP:NOTAFORUM is applying -I am staying on topic and discussing about the encyclopedia. If someone tells something which is in my opinion false,misleading or logically incorrect, I don't see why shouldn't I try to challenge it, and I expect other editors to do the same with me (and they do, often). However I understand that it can superficially be tiring, I will try to change my behaviour. But I cannot promise :) --Cyclopia^talk 15:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

When discussion gets hot and heavy it's easy to fall into "I have to respond to everything". It's a trap I fall into myself, and I appreciate being reminded of it. Your points (about responding when there is a need to clarify or refute something) are valid, but there's a middle ground... sometimes see if others that agree with you cover some of the points. Hope that helps. (says he who just responded to everything :) ) ++Lar: t/c 16:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree :) --Cyclopia^talk 17:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you...

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		For a creative solution to what's been a very tough problem in deletion policy. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not your idea ultimately is the one put into practice, creative thinking rather than constant sniping is exactly what we need more of. I'm glad to see it still exists around here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

My first barnstar! Thanks a lot :) --Cyclopia^talk 12:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Nutriveg user

Hi, I hope you feel fine. There is Nutriveg user that cancell our edits. Please control him, because he is making vandalism--Testosterone vs diabetes (talk) 20:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Its not vandalism but a difference of opinion on content (WP:Weight re WP:NPOV, WP:Verify and WP:MEDRS etc.) Calling it vandalism risks breaching WP:Assume good faith and is not the way to cooperate within a wiki :-) David Ruben ^Talk 04:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Ciations deleting IS vandalism!--Testosterone vs diabetes (talk) 17:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you both explain me what are you talking about? TvD, please call down and stop tossing around accusations of vandalism. This is a wiki, get used to the fact that any edit can be undone or challenged by other editors. --Cyclopia^talk 21:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Relates to TvD not gaining favour for edit waring across several articles that Type 2 diabetes mellitus is due to testosterone levels - whilst association/interaction seen that is a far cry from exclusive causation, then issues of citing from medical reliable sources to verify and establish WP:WEIGHT of a WP:POV. In essence a real-world researcher needing to learn how to cooperate in a wiki and that WP is not a soapbox for the advancement of an idea, but a mirror to current (allbeit imperfect) understanding - I see got blocked last night for "31 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule". David Ruben ^Talk 11:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I looked for myself and I've seen everything already went "solved". Thanks. --Cyclopia^talk 12:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Kudos

I just want to say that I'm impressed with how you have handled your part of the communication at Diabetes mellitus. I think that, considering the circumstances, you have been extremely level-headed and helpful to the new user. I also like how you took the time to examine TvD:s claims and came to the conclusion that (s)he may have a point. Many editors would have declined to look closely at any suggestions that were made in an aggressive manner. Good work!Sjö (talk) 14:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! --Cyclopia^talk 14:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Crotchety old Man

Hi

Thanks for opening the ANI.

Just a quick note - it may be worth doing that fancy trace test where you see which IP addresses / cookies / users match this user. in other words, we should check if he/she is a sockpuppet. My internet connection sucks ATM, but I'll check back in whenever I can. Rfwoolf (talk) 11:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no serious reasons to think that C.O.M. is a sockpuppet, however how do you do that? Isn't checkuser admin stuff? --Cyclopia^talk 11:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes checkuser sounds right, and yes im pretty sure adminship is needed, of which i dont have. in any case, he has many of the signs of a troll/sockpuppet. First of all he reminds me of a certain admin that is known for his gross incivility who I shall remain nameless, but odds are isn't him. Crotchety's user profile goes as far as showing his actual PICTURE -- with absolutely nothing else. Why would he reveal his actual identity and nothing else? Therefore the photo isn't him. If he put his picture and some userboxes and stuff like "Hi, I'm John. I like fishing, long walks on the beach and Cubin cigars" I might have believed he's legit. Then take a look at his contribs. While there may be no serious reasons to believe he's a sockpuppet, he does come across as very suspicious. Rfwoolf (talk) 19:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. First off, I can't seem to track down the ANI anymore. Was it removed somehow?

Second, the photo on the userpage of Crotchety Old Man is a photo by User:Beyond_silence -- take a look at Beyond silence's userpage in his/her list of favourite photos. The photo title is Old man and the Sea. Still convinced he's not a sock puppet? Rfwoolf (talk) 00:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

1)I guess it has been automatically archived. It happens all the times at ANI, unfortunately, because admins leave discussions pending without closing them. I will contact the admin who has expressed concerns, but however I think we have to wait for next questionable behaviour by our old man, reopen it and maybe contacting directly a couple of admins.

2)No, it doesn't convince me. Simply using the same photo tells nothing to me. See WP:SIGNS. --Cyclopia^talk 11:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I looked through the archives and couldn't find anything. As if it mysteriously disapperaed, but I didn't look very hard because my internet connection is pretty crap at the moment. Think about the photo, the fact that it's called "Old man and the sea", the fact that another wikipedian took the photo. This was not a user that uploaded a photo he happened to have of himself - this is a user that searched for a photo of an old man and put it up as his picture as if to say "this resembled my character". Rfwoolf (talk) 14:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

1)There is, I found it before. It is in one of the latest archives.

2)Again, nothing of what you say makes me think that C.O.M. can be a sockpuppet even remotely. They happened to choose the same photo. Meh. Please look at WP:SIGNS before tossing out such pretty serious accusations. --Cyclopia^talk 14:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll disregard all the personal attacks and accusations of sock-puppetry. If I had gotten clowned as bad as you two did, I'd be embarrassed and throwing directionless haymakers too. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 18:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I have accused no one of sockpuppetry, so please be precise in your accusations. Oh, and FYI, no one's gotten "clowned". --Cyclopia^talk 18:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Sono incazzato

Note: This discussion is in Italian for conveniency reason. If needed I can provide a translation to interested parties.

Non ce l'ho con te (anche se non mi è piaciuto per niente che hai marchiato il mio comportamento come "ignobile"), ma con tutti questi miti (dieta povera di zuccheri, demonizzazione del povero colesterolo ecc).

Io non studio il diabete, tutto quello che so l'ho imparato perchè ho studiato gli ormoni animali all'università, poi ho continuato da solo (vedi dopo).

Mio padre era diabetico, aveva 500 di glicemia, i piedi stavano marcendo, il tutto con buona pace della metformina e della dieta povera di zuccheri. Poi ha preso testosterone e non ha avuto più problemi, ora può mangiare anche le torte (non ne parlo nelle discussioni per una questione di riservatezza).

A me tutti questi miti e tutta questa omertà non mi piacciono per niente, mi sono messo in testa di parlarne apertamente, non me ne frega niente di essere bannato

Il problema è che con tutta questa manfrina del doping è difficile persino avere una ricetta di testosterone contro il diabete. Se tutti prendessero il testo contro il diabete sarebbe un'altra cosa...--Testosterone vs diabetes (talk) 15:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Ciao.Sono contento che mi hai contattato. Innanzitutto, mi dispiace per il tuo coinvolgimento personale. Non dubito del caso di tuo padre, nè che tu possa avere ragione in generale. Il punto è che non devi convincere Wikipedia di questa questione, non perchè tu abbia torto, ma perchè non è questo il luogo per fare una campagna mediatica. Capisco il tuo interesse verso la cosa, ma questo sito è concepito per essere un'enciclopedia scritta in collaborazione con numerose persone. Per questo motivo ha numerose regole, le quali sono lì per rendere questa collaborazione possibile. Ora, il punto è che non possiamo basare ciò che scriviamo su dell'aneddotica, o assemblando insieme deduzioni da dati isolati. Wikipedia non esiste per creare informazioni nuove, ma per riportare le informazioni che ci sono già. E (accettalo) la letteratura scientifica attualmente indica il testosterone come cura per il diabete come cosa "possibile", "in corso di studio" ma non come "certa". Se la pensi diversamente, liberissimo, ma prima di scriverlo qua, devi convincere la comunità scientifica.

Non è questione di "miti" e di "omertà". Nessuno è qua per censurare qualcosa -e se qualcuno lo è, prima o poi viene mandato via a calci. Il problema non è quello di cui parli, ma come ne parli.

Capisco se sei incazzato sulla questione, ma strillare e accusare la gente di vandalismo o di essere venduti alle case farmaceutiche non ti servirà a nulla. Farà incazzare altra gente a sua volta, e non otterrai niente (se non un ban). Se c'è qualcosa a cui serve questo sito, è a imparare a collaborare in modo produttivo. C'è un proverbio inglese che dice: You catch more flies with honey than vinegar (Prendi più mosche col miele che con l'aceto). Il mio consiglio è: Aspetta qualche giorno ora. Lascia calmare il tutto, non c'è fretta. Nel frattempo approfittane per leggere le linee guida e le policies (i regolamenti) di en.wikipedia. Fallo davvero, perchè non ci sarà giorno in cui qualcuno non te ne citerà una dozzina, se ti metti a editare seriamente su questo sito. Dopo di che cerca di discutere nel modo più rilassato, sereno e obiettivo possibile. Per dire, se cancellano un tuo edit, invece di scrivere "Why so much vandalism about X!!" usa un tono cortese del tipo: I noticed that we miss information about X. X is supported by the following papers and reviews... which say that... What is the most appropriate place where to put this information? What do you think? eccetera. Se qualcuno contesta ciò che dici -anche pesantemente- non ti far prendere dall'emozione. Non è facile, e credimi, me ne rendo conto, ma è meglio per tutti. Evita ad ogni costo attacchi "ad personam". Se stigmatizzo pesantemente certi comportamenti, è perchè gridare, insultare etc. rende collaborare su questo sito impossibile e odioso, e la mia tolleranza verso tali comporamenti è vicina allo zero.

Infine, fatti un'idea di come le discussioni vengono tenute leggendo altre talk pages, discussioni, eccetera. Wikipedia è un sito tremendamente complesso, e io stesso, che ci edito da anni, sono ancora un novellino.

Spero che ora il tutto ti sia più chiaro. --Cyclopia^talk 16:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, non è facile! Se mi si dice che non ho messo gli articoli a riprova di quello che ho detto, quando questi sono in bella mostra è difficile restare calmi ed è impossibile credere nell'altrui buona fede. Penso di aver dette sempre delle cose corrette basate su studi e non su quello che personalmente ho visto. Il testosterone viene usato contro il diabete da diversi medici coraggiosi (anche in Italia), quindi non è esattamente una cura avveniristica. Un altro farmaco sta per essere commercializzato con finalità ben diverse dal diabete, non lo nomino mai per evitare che le case farmaceutiche sospendano l'immissione in commercio.

Ad ogni modo hai cancellato delle frasi dicendo che erano ridondanti quando non era così. L'argomento ormoni che interagiscono con la rispota insulinica va ampliato. In più siccome tu sei in buona fede mi farebbe piacere che tu mi aiutassi contro gli attacchi che mi vengono rivolti. Penso che sia importante fare chiarezza sull'argomento diabete.

Le mie "presunte teorie" sulle cospirazioni hanno delle evidenze notevoli, ti ricordo ad esempio che la storia della correlazione tra cortisolo/testosterone/diabete mellito è conosciuta sin dal 1932 (non esattamente ieri). Se le case farmaceutiche fossero veramente intenzionate a curare il diabete, avrebbero applicato da tempo questa nozione.--Testosterone vs diabetes (talk) 16:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Se le ho cancellate, è perchè erano ridondanti (a mio giudizio) in quel contesto. La pagina corretta dove inserire appieno queste informazioni è quella sul diabete di tipo II, non la pagina generale sul diabete (nè, specialmente, la pagina sul metformin). Detto ciò, il punto è che quello che dici dev'essere ampiamente supportato dalla letteratura. Il problema è che la letteratura che citi supporta qualcosa, ma non tutto, e non nel modo in cui la poni tu. La policy sulle fonti di WP è pedante ma lo è per evitare che uno possa dedurre ciò che vuole dalle fonti che cita.

Infine, io non ti posso difendere dagli "attacchi" se tu attacchi per primo. Accusare di vandalismo e accusare gli editor di cospirare per censurare delle cose è un comportamento inaccettabile, non importa quanto tu ne sia convinto: non farlo. Rendi la vita difficile a chi cerca di aiutarti, e la rendi facile a chi si oppone alle tue posizioni. Morditi la lingua, fai qualunque cosa ma evita. L'unico modo in cui posso difenderti è cercare di consigliarti per quanto possibile. Il resto dipende da te, assumo che siamo entrambi adulti e vaccinati. --Cyclopia^talk 17:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Secondo me l'influenza degli ormoni nella risposta insulinica non è un argomento specifico al DM2, ma a tutti i tipi di diabete. Certo nel diabete mellito tipo 2 l'insulinoresistenza gioca un ruolo essenziale (secondo me infatti il DM2 si dovrebbe chiamare eccessiva insulinoresistenza, anche per distinguerlo dal MODY), ma è anche vero che la risposta insulinica è essenziale in tutti i tipi di diabete. Considera che il testosterone viene utilizzato anche in pazienti con DM1 al fine di diminuire l'insulinoresistenza e quindi le dosi di insulina. Per questo motivo io personalmente credo che quelle frasi (meglio se ampliate) vadano messe in un paragrafo generale e non in uno specifico.--Testosterone vs diabetes (talk) 18:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Potrei sbagliarmi, ma tutta la letteratura che ho trovato e che hai citato però parlava del DM2. Comunque, di questo si può discutere appropriatamente con gli altri editor sulla talk page -dopo qualche tempo magari, così tutti quanti saremo più tranquilli. --Cyclopia^talk 19:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Certo certo...è normale che quello che io chiamo rapporto testosterone/cortisolo (tieni presente che il cortisolo elevato abbassa sempre il testosterone) è essenziale per il DM2, ed è quindi normale che questi ormoni vengano studiati soprattutto in relazione al DM2, tuttavia anche i diabetici giovani dovrebbero controllare questo paramentro, proprio perchè l'azione dell'insulina riguarda tutti gli animali superiori di questo mondo. Che il cortisolo diminuisca il numero e la conformazione tridimensionale dei recettori insulinici è una nozione che interessa tutti. Che il GH diminuisca il numero dei recettori insulinici è anche importante per tutti. Che l'IGF-I migliori l'azione insulinca idem (di fatto molto spesso i diabetici hanno carenza di questo essenziale ma sottavalutatissimo ormone).

Il dottor Hullis nella sua clinica da ai giovani dibetici insulino-dipendenti 1 g di testosterone al mese (una dose fortissima) proprio per migliorare l'azione insulinica.

Secondo me inoltre l'articolo diabete umano non dovrebbe essere diverso da quello animale, in fondo le cause dei diabeti sono sempre le stesse--Testosterone vs diabetes (talk) 19:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

While you are at it...

Could you please give Richard Dawkins your expert attention? In particular, there is no review of Prof. Dawkins' peer-reviewed work and there are some sentences in the text that are sourced, but of questionable relevance. Of course, James D. Watson also could used some review for balance.--Plantening (talk) 20:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd say you should explain your (much reasonable) concerns at the article talk page. I am unfortunately not familiar with Dawkins' more technical work (even if I absolutely love his books). --Cyclopia^talk 21:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Bose wave systems

An article that you have been involved in editing, Bose wave systems, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bose wave systems (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Testosterone vs Diabetes

I have been looking into this dispute to better understand some of the rules of wikipedia, it would be much appreciated if you gave be the translation of your discussion on my talk page - thanks EarthCom1000 (talk) 21:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't say much more of "I have this personal experience that tells me that testosterone is the cure and metformin is not" and me saying "Ok, but please note that we have some rules and especially personal attacks will make you more harm than good, the point is often not what you say but how you say it", mixed with stuff about diabetes and hormones. If you want a full translation allow me a few days (and poke me because I will forget), but I think you can get all the gist of the discussion from the relevant talk pages. --Cyclopia^talk 21:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Cyclopia. You have new messages at S Marshall's talk page.
Message added 21:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Merkey AfD

Did someone indicate Merkey wanted the article deleted? --Ronz (talk) 22:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

NuclearWarfare provided an explanation. --Ronz (talk) 23:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Bibliography page guideline proposal

Hi Cyclopia,

As you have been involved in the previous discussions about bibliography pages, I thought you should be notified about a formal proposal here. Any constructive contributions would be welcome.

Happy editing,

Neelix (talk) 20:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Samvel Karapetyan

please state your intention to address the {{notability}} issue, or better yet just do it. Don't just remove prod tags without taking the least measure to salvage the article. If you do nothing, we'll have to AfD the article because there is literally not a shred of evidence of why Wikipedia should carry it. See also WP:BLP. --dab (𒁳) 16:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The PROD tag said "unsourced BLP", and as such it looked wrong to me since there were links below. I admit I haven't checked the links, and it is true that they are 404. Sorry for that. However Ghits and Gbooks links give some kind of evidence of notability, and since it is easy that local sources from Armenia are easily missed from us non-Armenians, I'd prefer the thing to be discussed by AfD if needed. I know WP:BLP of course but if you don't tell me what is the violation I don't understand why you refer it to me.

That said, in general I remove PROD tags not because I feel that I have to salvage the article, but because I feel that deletion is not the right way to deal with it. I may be unable to edit it, but someone else could, and just throwing articles in the bin because someone doesn't her/his WP:BEFORE looks simply wrong to me. At least at AfD there is a community discussion. The PROD mechanism is highly problematic in my opinion, because you don't need a community discussion, and as such many obscure but otherwise fine articles often go in the bitbucket unnoticed. Several articles I de-PRODded successfully passed AfD later or were correctly merged, for example. --Cyclopia^talk 11:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf

Your name was brought up by a party to the Arbitration case located here. Any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider can be added to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf/Workshop.

--Tothwolf (talk) 20:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

TL;DR -unless you tell me where exactly I am involved. --Cyclopia^talk 20:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, unfortunately it is getting that way. Luckily I had your talk page watchlisted from before, as I was just posting a generic notice. A quick grep over the entire text shows Miami33139 brought up the Parchive discussion above and you had also participated in quite a few of the AfDs in the table here. --Tothwolf (talk) 21:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. However I don't see how I can be of help to either party; skimming here and there it looks like a giant storm in a teacup to me. --Cyclopia^talk 21:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

LOL That is the best analogy I've read so far ;) This had actually been going on for quite awhile before you were made aware of it via those AfDs and related AN/I discussions. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Saratlas

If you're talking about the hits in [14], those are Icon Group International, an annoying reprinter of Wikipedia content. --NE2 23:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Ouch, didn't know that. Thanks for making me notice and sorry for my naivete! --Cyclopia^talk 23:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Would you be willing to reinstate the prod tag? --NE2 00:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks but no thanks. There is some source mentioning it, after all (e.g. [15]). Also, being a French website, it could be that local RS exist which I cannot find now due to language barrier (my French is pretty basic). Finally, I feel that PROD is a fairly dangerous mechanism -it leads to the deletion of articles which do not pass WP:CSD but without a community consensus discussion. If you're keen on wanting it deleted, bring the article to AfD where it can be properly discussed. --Cyclopia^talk 00:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spin the bottle

I've reclosed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spin the bottle. When you accidentally closed with TFD tags, some code remained causing the wrong color to appear. Next time something like that happens, I recommend you revert your faulty edit first. :) - Mgm|^(talk) 13:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, right. Sorry, I was just adding clumsiness on clumsiness. --Cyclopia^talk 13:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Care to join in?

You made a cogent point at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haunting Sarah and so I took a few hours to expand and source the article. Its still ongoing, and so far I have turned THIS into THIS. Might you care to check it over and join in or advise? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Nothing else to say apart from... Brilliant. Thank you! --Cyclopia^talk 10:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I blush. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Still blushing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)