User talk:Cyclopia/Archive 5

Noloop's POV vis-a-vis Christ myth theory

Here he adds the Christ myth theory into the top (second paragraph, 4th full sentence) of the lead of Historical Jesus. I think this is pretty clear. My point is that pushing this POV as aggressively as he's been doing is disruptive to the encyclopedia. It is a recognized fringe POV.Griswaldo (talk) 11:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I know it is a fringe POV, and yes, pushing it in the lead is not a good idea at all. I wouldn't call the guy "aggressive", he is doing it wrong but aggressive POV pushers are another breed. I would probably move all the "Criticism as myth" section in Historicity of Jesus#Jesus as myth. By the way, isn't it possible to merge the two articles? You probably know better than me why they are separated. --Cyclopia^talk 12:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Meetup Cambridge 8

Wikipedia:Meetup/Cambridge 8 will be on Saturday 24 July. As you may have seen. Hope to see you there. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Infinite-loop motif

Hi, I happened to notice that you took on my problem child, Infinite-loop motif. Good of you to do that, and I completely understand your motivation. In fact, I have been contemplating writing an academic paper on the subject which would provide at least one reference for it, which would be, paper and WP article, an excellent example of the concept itself. In any case, I am somewhat troubled by its deletion by moving to your user space. The problem is this: that article was intertwined into at least a dozen other articles in such a way that the references cannot easily be redone, and more, it has references all over the WWW. The proper deletion of the article is actually a monumental task, and I do not know how to estimate the effect of its precipitous deletion. Not sure what to do about this.--Jarhed (talk) 09:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand what the problem is about. --Cyclopia^talk 14:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it is not a problem and I am worrying too much. It's just that now there are a bunch of red links on a bunch of arts pages that no longer make sense, if they made any sense in the first place.Jarhed (talk) 17:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010

• News and notes: New interwiki project improves biographies, and other news

• In the news: Wikipedia leads in customer satisfaction, Google Translate and India, Citizendium transition, Jimbo's media accolade

• WikiProject report: These Are the Voyages of WikiProject Star Trek

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Discussion report: Controversial e-mail proposal, Invalid AfD

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Cyclopia, thank you very much for your comments and input, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daryl Wine Bar and Restaurant. You make a very good point that the "region" includes millions of persons, and the subject matter has been significantly covered in WP:RS sources. It is indeed confusing and seems poking at double-standards that some other users seem to be splitting hairs here in an attempt to get this article removed from Wikipedia. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 03:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Welcome! Please join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Restaurant_notability just in case. --Cyclopia^talk 10:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Nod, a bit weary due to the multiple various forum-shopping-type locations where individuals have chosen to start discussions (at the same exact time in four or so places about this article) in order to have a forum to attack me. Perhaps later. Cheers. -- Cirt (talk) 10:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Moved from policy talk page

If you have the feeling I misrepresent your opinion, please accept my apologies. This is definitely not what I want. It is probably a case of simple misunderstanding. --Cyclopia^talk 18:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm not offended I'm just past the point that I think a productive conversation can happen between us. There is no need to apologize but just know that I intend not to engage you as in interlocutor if possible because its causing me way too much frustration. Have a good one.Griswaldo (talk) 18:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, fine. I'm sorry to frustrate you. --Cyclopia^talk 19:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Historical Jesus: Arbitration

Discuss. [1] Noloop (talk) 19:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I will comment as soon as I have time. --Cyclopia^talk 19:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Another list of sources

Because of a recent unblock request posted on AN/I I noticed this User talk:Eugeneacurry. He has addressed the source concern directly. Hope that helps. I do think it was Bill who provided the other more extensive list.Griswaldo (talk) 22:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the heads up, I commented on it on Talk:Historicity of Jesus. Looks good. --Cyclopia^talk 13:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Since you're in quote-collecting business: [2] Noloop (talk) 18:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Jesus Mediation

[3] Noloop (talk) 18:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Noloop, this is forum shopping. I have tried to help you, but your behaviour doesn't help nor you, nor your concerns. Please stop. --Cyclopia^talk 18:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it's attempt at dispute resolution. You flatly refuse to acknowledge that being fringe differs from being in the minority. We cannot agree. Ergo, mediation. I can't imagine where you get the idea that it is being "solved" in the Talk pages. Noloop (talk) 18:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It is solved because all your requests have been answered, except one that is irrelevant to the treatment of the subject as fringe theory. You are asking the same thing again and again in N forums, and this is forum shopping. Stick at one venue. --Cyclopia^talk 18:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

None of my requests have been answered. You excerpted a single sentence, out of context, from WP:FRINGE and ignored my points in response. Nobody has provided secular, peer-reviewed sources that say it's a fact Jesus existed. Nobody has provided a secular, peer-reviewed basis for saying that Christ myth theory belongs in the realm of Holocaust denial. There continues to be immediate reversion, ala edit-warring, of any attempt to attribute the Chrsitian nature of 90% of our sources. NOthing has been resolved at all. Noloop (talk) 18:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I didn't ignore them. I have read your points in response and they were irrelevant. Now:

• Nobody has provided secular, peer-reviewed sources that say it's a fact Jesus existed. : We don't need them. Or better: they would be much welcome, but they are not relevant to the point. The point is: is CMT in the academic mainstream? Both Christian scholars, non-Christian scholars and even CMT proponents agree that no, it isn't. So it is a fringe view as far as WP:FRINGE is concerned. So we can and should discuss it in the articles as such.
• Nobody has provided a secular, peer-reviewed basis for saying that Christ myth theory belongs in the realm of Holocaust denial. - This is just pointy, and due to a bad comparison your opponents made. It belongs in the realm of non-mainstream, very minoritary positions in the academic consensus. This is all we need.
• There continues to be immediate reversion, ala edit-warring, of any attempt to attribute the Chrsitian nature of 90% of our sources. - This can be a problem and I agree, in general -but once the CMT thing has been settled (and it is settled, Noloop: please acknowledge it), it is a problem that belongs to other specific content of the articles. --Cyclopia^talk 18:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

We simply disagree on the definition of "fringe theory." You equate it with being in the minority. I believe the concept of being discredited is essential. We don't agree. That's why we need a mediator. Noloop (talk) 19:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

No, we don't need it: policy is already clear on this. It's policy definition that has a bearing, not our personal view. We don't need to mediate to restate policy. --Cyclopia^talk 19:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree, the policy is very clear. Being fringe is not merely a synonym for being in the minority. It entails rejection:

"Usually, mainstream and minority views are treated in the main article, with the mainstream view typically getting a bit more ink, but the minority view presented in such a fashion that both sides could agree to it. Singular views can be moved to a separate page and identified (disclaimed) as such, or in some cases omitted altogether.

"However, a lack of consideration or acceptance does not necessarily imply rejection, either; ideas should not be portrayed as rejected or labeled with pejoratives such as pseudoscience unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources.

"Ideas that have been rejected, are widely considered to be absurd or pseudoscientific, only of historical interest, or primarily the realm of science fiction, should be documented as such, using reliable sources. Noloop (talk) 03:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Read carefully. The policy is very clear in distinguishing what is a minority view from an utterly rejected view, and in clarifying the difference in the articles -that is, if a view is fringe but not completely rejected, one should not label it as "rejected" or "pseudoscience". But both are fringe, per the main definition of being clearly minoritary and far from the mainstream view. --Cyclopia^talk 11:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

(The point is also that fringe theory can apply also to things that are not science, and therefore cannot have a formal peer reviewed "rejection". Funny example: If I want, I could publish a wacky treatise that interpretes the Divine Comedy as a metaphor of anal sex, by cleverly stretching the interpretation of the text. Is it possible to reject this view altogether, scientifically? No, it isn't: it's a matter of mere interpretation of a literary text. However no doubt it would be considered a completely fringe theory.) --Cyclopia^talk 11:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkpage

You recently reverted one of my edits. Could you go to the talkpage and state your reason for disagreeing(or just state it hear). My point being that the interpretation of the scientific method by biblical scholars is irrelevant and that it should be removed until the interpretation by scientists can replace it.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 21:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The Request for mediation concerning Many Jesus-related articles, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 22:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
(This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.)

Your comment on god

Yes, Cyclopia, I studied Politics and Philosophy at undergraduate level (focusing on philosophy of religion, philosophy of science, and predicate calculus) receiving a BA at one of the top British universities, was a social worker for a while, then studied Economics and and Business Studies as a post-grad, worked in business for a few years, then lived in a Religious Order as a novice for two years (where I studies theology & scripture), left and studied for an MSc in Information Technology, and worked as an IT professional for over a decade. I have been working on a research PhD in social science (LGBT studies, queer theory, social anthropology and gender studies) for the past seven years (currently working on post-viva revisions). I no longer adhere to any organised religion, as I have lost faith in the church and am not prepared to surrender reason to dogma; if there is a deity, I would expect him/her to be more rational than human beings, not less; much of what passes as religion relies on a suspension of reason. - MishMich - Talk - 22:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi MishMich. Sounds like an interesting life! My actual life pathway is much simpler: while living in a deeply Catholic country (Italy), I became an atheist at 12 years old after having realized that there was no empirical evidence nor logical proofs for the existence of God (Being exposed to Nietzsche and Dawkins also helped). Never looked back. . I got a degree in Biotechnology, a Ph.D. in molecular biophysics and now I'm working on protein simulations as a post-doc researcher. Your life path gives me hope on coming back to study after working (I would love to get a degree in Physics, but I am pretty wary of doing that -going back to study?). I'd say that all what passes as religion relies on a suspension of reason -what is not a suspension of reason is usually common sense plugged into religion, not religion itself. Thank you for sharing your experiences with me. If you by chance happen to visit Cambridge, UK, let me know. --Cyclopia^talk 22:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Cheers

Dear Cyclopia, I would like to apologize for my attitude during some of our discussions. We clearly don't agree about several things, which isn't going to change, but in retrospect I wish I had comported myself in a calmer more measured way at times. I am going to make a concerted effort to take a different attitude into my discussions about these and other topics from now on. I just wanted to let you know. I also appreciate your recent comments on the Historicity of Jesus page, even though again I know we don't agree on the details. I appreciate the comments because they show to me that you are actively engaging new materials instead of simply entrenching yourself in a position. That is admirable. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to do the same with you. Your statement is extremly appreciated. I would say that this is the best of Wikipedia, when people with vastly diverging opinions, backgrounds etc. can find a common ground and work for the common good despite all their differences, and learning both something in the process. There is no need for apologies on your part: this kind of process requires a bit of growing pains. What's important is that in the end we can work together, and appreciate it. Thank you very much! --Cyclopia^talk 17:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 August 2010

• News and notes: Canadian political edits, Swedish royal wedding, Italian "right of reply" bill, Chapter reports

• In the news: Gardner and Sanger on why people edit Wikipedia, Fancy and frugal reading devices, Medical article assessed

• WikiProject report: Always Expanding: WikiProject Images and Media

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution

• Technology report: Major MediaWiki release, password security, vulnerable MediaWiki installations, and more

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Have replied on my page

Rushing to switch off, storms overhead and no time to copy and paste the draft. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 15:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Your antagonisitc edit warring

You really need to cure yourself of the habit of reverting edits with the comment "don't edit war." Figure it out. Noloop (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Are Wikipedians "Khmer rouge in nappies", asks Jimbo

Jimbo doesn't like it when I contradict him on his talk page, so I'll just point out to you here when he said to you "Are Wikipedians "Khmer rouge in nappies", I'd claim he took out of context what's clearly intended as sardonic characterization of certain common Wikipedian attitudes. The full context of the basic point seems correct: "For most web surfers, the Wikipedia is simply an occasionally useful online resource that needs to be taken with a huge sackful of salt. For others, it's a poor excuse for a real encylopedia. But for its proponents, it's nothing short of revolutionary! It's Emergent[*], you see.". He (and others) might not like that hyperbolic derision - but it's funny because it's (at heart) true. Oh, the "Do we have black helicopters circling in Utah" charge is similarly distorting a very long article about what was not Wikipedia's finest moment. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 22:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are trying to communicate to me. The first link seems a random WR-like poor rant on WP. The second link is absolutely tl;dr. If it has to do with your old insistence in removing in your bio, well, please be known that I am very unhappy about that article deletion. If it has to do with something else, please summarize it to me if you want me to read it, and why should it concern me. But well, thanks anyway for the intervention. --Cyclopia^talk 23:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought you'd be interested in the full context of the evidence he offered to you in his reply. My thinking was that seeing the actual articles, versus how he characterized them, puts a different face on his claims - i.e. he took phrases which were clearly meant humorously, and then employed this mischaracterization in support of his argument that "The Register is absolutely worthless as a source, full stop, in all circumstances.". You may not like those particular articles, but they hardly make the literal claims that one might think they do, from reading only his description. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 11:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, much clearer now (Sorry, yesterday night I was tired and I'm badly stressed in this period). Good to know. Cheers. --Cyclopia^talk 13:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010

• News and notes: FBI requests takedown of seal, Public Policy advisors and ambassadors, Cary Bass leaving, new Research Committee

• In the news: Wikinews interviews Umberto Eco, and more

• Admin stats: RfA drought worsens in 2010—wikigeneration gulf emerging

• Sister projects: Strategic Planning update

• WikiProject report: Chocks away for WikiProject Aviation

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Metadynamics

Courcelles 18:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Help on fixing Italian WP article

Hi, wondering if you would like to help fix a rather grave misrepresentation in it:Sex crimes and the Vatican. Fr Doyle is cited as having written "benché abbia lavorato come consulente per i produttori del documentario, temo proprio che alcune distinzioni che ho fatto a proposito del documento del 1962 siano andate perdute. Non credo né ho mai creduto che quel documento sia la prova di un complotto esplicito, nel senso convenzionale, orchestrato dai più alti responsabili del Vaticano per tenere nascosti casi di abusi sessuali perpetrati dal clero".

That is only half of the truth - the half that fits the cover up artists in the catholic church very well.

What he really wrote is here and in the sake of a more balanced representation I think it would be good to quote a bit more from his letter such as "The secrecy and cover-up was very much a part of the Catholic institutional culture and was, in fact, a policy. I have studied the files of hundreds of clergy sex abuse cases throughout the U.S., in Canada, Ireland and the British Isles....files produced by dioceses and religious orders.....and I can assure you that the common thread was an intentional cover-up enshrouded in secrecy. That is the way it was."

My Italian is not quite good enough that I would do it myself. Thanks Richiez (talk) 12:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I fixed it reporting the full quote. I hope it helps. --Cyclopia^talk 13:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Great thanks, looks much better:) Richiez (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 August 2010

• News and notes: Book publisher apologizes for plagiarizing photos by Wikipedians, brief news

• Spam attacks: Large scale vandalism revealed to be "study" by university researcher

• In the news: Supportive communication and missing incentives on Wikipedia, and more

• WikiProject report: A Pit Stop with WikiProject NASCAR

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: ArbCom releases names of CU/OS applicants after delay

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 07:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Can you tell me if i interpreted this [4] correctly on the page Legal status of cartoon pornography depicting minors? Worromp Warg (talk) 10:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the heads up. Well, you almost were there. The law requires them, for prosecution, to be actually retouched photos of real minors, so fully hand-drawn cartoons, for example, are not included. --Cyclopia^talk 13:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, but "a third of the penal value attributed to real life child pornography" refers to child molestation. Virtual Child Porn is punished with 1/3 of the penal value given to Real Life Child Molestation. Worromp Warg (talk) 21:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand where you got this impression. Child molestation is one thing. Child pornography is another (it requires child molestation, but if someone merely distributes CP someone else did, that somene hasn't molested a child -let's leave alone the ethical implications). According to the source, the law about virtual CP refers to the penalties of CP, not child molestation. The actual text of the law is a bit terse (as usual, since it is basically a diff with the previous law), but it seems to confirm this. --Cyclopia^talk 22:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 August 2010

• News and notes: Pending changes poll, Public policy classes, Payment schemes debate, and more

• In the news: Zionist editing courses, newspaper denies editing candidate, net neutrality

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Cryptozoology

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Proposed decision of climate change case posted

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 19:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you, very much, for your kind words at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia about my work on the article. Much appreciated. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2010

• News and notes: Most linked websites on Wikipedia, New York Wiki-Conference, and more

• In the news: Agatha Christie spoiled, Wales on Wikileaks, University students improve Wikipedia, and more

• WikiProject report: Studying WikiProject Universities

• Features and admins: Featured article milestone: 3,000

• Arbitration report: What does the Race and intelligence case tell us?

• Technology report: Reusability of MediaWiki code, Google Summer of Code: Interwiki transclusion, and more

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations

on the new job. We've had our disagreements in the past, but now you're a spokesman I shall treat you with the proper deference!  pablo 21:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Ahahah, thank you (I don't even remember what we disagreed about) --Cyclopia^talk 10:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Filter out ugliest ducklings

Proposals page, I'd appreciate your view based on the 10 articles I deem ducklings. Regards Mark^Dask 17:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

re:whatever did you wrote on my talk (i forgot =O)

well i was tryng to put it in archive 65 and guess what! i did it! =P --Sistemx (talk) 17:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The page is automatically archived, you shouldn't mess with it yourself. --Cyclopia^talk 18:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

oh really? crappp -.- well then delete that archive --Sistemx (talk) 18:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 September 2010

• News and notes: Pending changes analyzed, Foundation report, Main page bias, brief news

• In the news: WikiLeaks and Wikipedia; Google–WP collaboration to translate health information

• Book review: Cognitive Surplus, by Clay Shirky

• Dispatches: Tools, part 1: References, external links, categories and size

• WikiProject report: Putting articles in their place: the Uncategorized Task Force

• Features and admins: Bumper crop of admins; Obama featured portal marks our 150th

• Arbitration report: Interim desysopping, CU/OS appointments, and more

• Technology report: Development transparency, resource loading, GSoC: extension management

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 September 2010

• News and notes: Page-edit stats, French National Library partnership, Mass page blanking, Jimbo on Pending changes

• In the news: Public Policy Initiative, Houellebecq plagiarism?, Article revisions as book

• Public Policy Initiative: Experiments with article assessment

• Sister projects: Biography bloopers – update on the Death Anomalies collaboration

• WikiProject report: Getting the picture – an interview with the Graphic lab

• Features and admins: "Magnificent" warthog not so cute, says featured picture judge

• Arbitration report: Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 19:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Cyclopia. You have new messages at Jayen466's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Signpost: 20 September 2010

• From the editor: New ways to read and share the Signpost

• News and notes: Dutch National Archives donation, French photo raid, brief notes

• In the news: Rush Limbaugh falls for Wikipedia hoax, Public Policy Initiative, Nature cites Wikipedia

• WikiProject report: All Aboard WikiProject Trains

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Dispatches: Tools, part 2: Internal links and page histories

• Arbitration report: Discretionary sanctions clarification and more

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Spoiler Discussion

Dear User,

You previously participated at the discussion regarding the collapsing of spolier's at Talk:The_Mousetrap. I invite you to comment at a similar discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Spoiler#Proposal.

Many Thanks

Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 22:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. --Cyclopia^talk 22:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2010

• News and notes: French million, controversial content, Citizendium charter, Pending changes, and more

• In the news: Wikimedia moves into India, critical conference, Vandalism detection contest

• WikiProject report: Designing WikiProject Architecture

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: EEML amendment requests & more

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 20:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

AFD: List of years in politics

I have listed List of years in politics, the PROD tag of which you had recently removed, in articles for deletion. You may find the deletion debate page here. FYI. Geeteshgadkari (talk) 14:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 October 2010

• News and notes: German chapter remodeled to meet Foundation requirements, and more

• In the news: Spanish police pursues BLP vandals, Jimbo interviewed, advice for experts and spammers

• Book review: Good Faith Collaboration: The Culture of Wikipedia, by Joseph Reagle

• WikiProject report: Hot topics with WikiProject Volcanoes

• Features and admins: Milestone: 2,500th featured picture

• Arbitration report: Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution

• Technology report: Code reviewers, October Engineering update, brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 October 2010

• News and notes: Board resolutions, fundraiser challenge, traffic report, ten thousand good articles, and more

• In the news: Free culture conference, "The Register" retracts accusations, students blog about Wikipedia, and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Smithsonian Institution

• Features and admins: Big week for ships and music

• Dispatches: Tools, part 3: Style tools and wikEd

• Arbitration report: Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 06:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 October 2010

• News and notes: Wikipedia fundraiser event, Frankfurt book fair, news in brief

• WikiProject report: Show Me the Money: WikiProject Numismatics

• Features and admins: A week for marine creatures

• Dispatches: Common issues seen in Peer review

• Arbitration report: Climate change case closes after 4 months

• Technology report: Video subtitling tool, staff vs. volunteer developers, brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 October 2010

• News and notes: Mike Godwin leaves the Foundation, ArbCom election announced

• In the news: Good faith vs. bad faith, climate change, court citations, weirdest medieval fact, brief news

• WikiProject report: Nightmare on Wiki Street: WikiProject Horror

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• ArbCom interview: So what is being an arbitrator actually like?

• Arbitration report: Case closes within 1 month

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:No Moral Code

Please permit me to explain my edits to WP:No Moral Code. First, it cannot be both a failed proposal and an information page, because the two are contradictory. The page does not have consensus, so it's not an information page. Second, pages are not added manually to the category for Wikipedia essays. Thanks. --Bsherr (talk) 14:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

On the first I understand. On the second, what is the correct way to add it as an essay? Thanks! --Cyclopia^talk 18:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 November 2010

• News and notes: Foundation's finances, geodata milestone, interim counsel, museum conference

• In the news: Airplane construction with Wikipedia, lessons from the strategy project, logic over rhetoric

• WikiProject report: Scoring with WikiProject Ice Hockey

• Features and admins: Good-lookin' slugs and snails

• Arbitration report: Arb resignation during plagiarism discussion; election RfC closing in 2 days

• Technology report: Foundation office switches to closed source, secure browsing, brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation - your input is required

A request for mediation has been filed concerning a matter in which you have participated.

The operative page is at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Creampie (sexual act). Please go there and indicate your acceptance of mediation at the Parties' agreement to mediation section (or you can decline to accept mediation, if for some reason you want to.) If you have any questions about mediation, see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation or message me. Thank you for your time and consideration. Herostratus (talk) 16:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed that you posted as disagreeing with the request for mediation, which is your right of course. I notified everyone who made even a single post on the issue, as is required (I think), and sorry if this has been a bother to you. If your objection is just that you don't consider yourself a party to the discussion and/or don't want to be bothered with the issue, would you consider removing yourself as a party (or I'll do it for you if you request) rather than remaining as a party but actively disagreeing. Herostratus (talk) 05:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I actively disagree. --Cyclopia^talk 07:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 November 2010

• Fundraiser: November 15 launch, emphasis on banner optimization and community involvement

• News and notes: Second Wikipedian in Residence, {{citation needed}} for sanity

• In the news: WP prose praised, Public Policy update, education debate, WP documentary

• WikiProject report: WikiProject California

• Features and admins: No, not science fiction—real science

• Election report: The countdown begins

• Arbitration report: No cases this week; Date delinking sanctions reduced for one party; History ban extended

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 16:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

moving my comments

Please do not move my comments around from where I have put them in the context of where they belong. Off2riorob (talk) 00:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Apologies. I thought that a discussion on the AfD was more appropriate in the talk page, but if you insist in them staying there, no problem.--Cyclopia^talk 00:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, you really ought to request deletion of the AFD, no good will result from it, an AFD needs a nominator and a deletion reason, you are using it in an attempt to keep an article which is wrong and users can not comment and feel unable to comment because of the confused situation regarding the opening and what is actually going on, users need a simple clear AFD to give them a fair chance of responding. Off2riorob (talk) 00:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not using it in an attempt to keep -if anything, I put the article on the stakes because I like consensus to form properly, whatever it is. I simply want proper process to be followed. I assume editors are not so dumb not to understand what's going on, something which I repeatedly explained there. --Cyclopia^talk 12:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 November 2010

• News and notes: Fundraisers start for Wikipedia and Citizendium; controversial content and leadership

• In the news: How big can Wikipedia pictures get?; fundraising season

• WikiProject report: Sizzling: WikiProject Bacon

• Features and admins: Of lakes and mountains

• Dispatches: A guide to the Good Article Review Process

• Arbitration report: No cases this week; Amendments filed on Climate Change and Date Delinking; Motion passed on EEML

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI

FYI: Interesting (ongoing) AfD debate about the article "Archimedes, Inc." (article’s lead supporter was permanently blocked mid-debate with charges of paid editing.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.49.70.111 (talk) 18:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

See the discussion here: User_talk:Llywrch#Re:_AfD. User seems to be canvassing editors unrelated to the dispute. Also, having participated in the dispute, it's clear that the user wasn't blocked specifically for paid editing, but advertising, along with other reasons shown in the linked talk page discussion.--res Laozi speak 23:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no intention to take part in the dispute, on neither side. --Cyclopia^talk 15:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 November 2010

• News and notes: No further Bundesarchiv image donations; Dutch and German awards; anniversary preparations

• In the news: Jimbo Wales interviewed and parodied; Wikipedia in politics

• Book review: The Myth of the Britannica, by Harvey Einbinder

• WikiProject report: WikiProject College Football

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Election report: Candidates still stepping forward

• Arbitration report: Brews ohare site-banned; climate change topic-ban broadened

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2010

• News and notes: Backlog drive; youth and confidence among Wikipedians, brief news

• In the news: Fundraising banners continue to provoke; plagiarism charges against congressional climate change report

• Interview: Interview with Johanna Niesyto and Nathaniel Tkacz from "Critical Point of View"

• WikiProject report: Celebrate WikiProject Holidays

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Election report: Voting in full swing

• Arbitration report: New case: Longevity; Biophys topic ban likely to stay in place

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 20:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Manifesto benedict xvi.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Manifesto benedict xvi.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:JeffHawke.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:JeffHawke.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:JeffHawke h2231 en.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:JeffHawke h2231 en.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:JeffHawke Omrid.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:JeffHawke Omrid.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:JeffHawke h6866-h7289.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:JeffHawke h6866-h7289.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:JeffHawke moonlanding prediction LARGE.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:JeffHawke moonlanding prediction LARGE.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)