Jump to content

User talk:Cyclopia: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 338: Line 338:
</div></div>
</div></div>
<!-- Message sent by User:LivingBot@enwiki using the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Tools/Spamlist&oldid=614627263 -->
<!-- Message sent by User:LivingBot@enwiki using the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Tools/Spamlist&oldid=614627263 -->

== Request for comment ==

There is a proposal for a merge of certain information in the article [[Investigative Project on Terrorism]] (IPT) to the [[Steven Emerson]] article, and then deletion of the IPT article because there is no such entity. The article was created and includes information based on the pretext that the Investigative Project on Terrorism actually existed as a non-profit entity. It did not, and still does not. What did exist is Steven Emerson's think-tank, The Investigative Project, and Steven Emerson as a CNN reporter and later as an independent terrorism expert. He founded the Investigative Project on Terrorism FOUNDATION years later - April 2006 - which is the only official non-profit foundation organized legally. Unfortunately, editors are trying to combine all of Emerson's past work as a CNN reporter, and individual terrorism expert (dating back to the Oklahoma City bombing and before) into one big hodge podge of inaccuracies in the current article, IPT. Please read the discussion at [[Talk:Steven_Emerson#Merge and delete the IPT article]]. Thank you in advance. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF"><b>[[User:Atsme|Atsme]]</b></font><font color="gold">&#9775;</font>[[User talk:Atsme|<font color="green"><sup>Consult</sup></font>]] 18:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:31, 30 June 2014

Hello Cyclopia and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.


Please comment on Talk:Narconon

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Narconon. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My editing

You have stated that you are a biologist and have described my work as "sloppy". It may be fair comment, I am not really in a position to judge. I notice that you looked at the article Gastrotrich which I had recently expanded and has since become a GA. You made some small changes, mostly with regard to spelling, but no substantial ones. What did you think of the article? Did you think it should be given an "accuracy warning tag" as suggested in your ANI post quoted below? Do you think that I should be restricted from working on such an article? Was it perhaps an itsy-witsy bit sloppy to spell my username so incorrectly?

"I'm all for some kind of editing restriction on Cwimhraeth, and I'm all for some editing restriction on AfadsBad. As said above, they are both a mixture of good and bad: good faith but sloppy editing on one hand, useful criticism in a sea of harassment on the other. Both need to stop. What I would do, if I were running this place, is: 1)Restrict Cwimhraeth new article creation and article-space editing until a comprehensive review on her edits has finished 2)Put some accuracy warning tag on all articles Cwimhraeth has created, so that at least we can warn readers 3)Enforcing on-wiki harassment of Cwimhraeth by AfadsBad to stop: if AfadsBad wants to do useful criticism and/or fix stuff herself, all the best, but any more personal attacks will not be tolerated. Again, if I were running this place, but luckly I don't." Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at gastrotrich indeed, and while I've found yet no overwhelming inaccuracies, I am really not sure it is accurate, indeed: it seems to present things in a confusing way, and things have to be thoroughly checked. When it talks about habitat, for example, it seems self-contradictory to me, but to fix it I have to collate quite a bit of sources and put them together. I am also perplexed by the fact that, while lots of good academic sources are easy to find online, you seem to have stick to a few generic ones -but this is hardly an issue per se. Now, the article on gastrotrichs may be fine, I don't think all your articles are wrong. But there is a pattern of you making things up from images, of conflating sources with synthesis, of getting things sometimes just wrong . I do not have as an harsh judgement as AfadsBad on you, not at all: she is obsessively harassing you, no question, and she has to stop. I think you are overall a plus for the project. But this kind of sloppy subtle inaccuracies are problematic, exactly because they are not easy to spot at a cursory look. I think it would be good if you restrained from editing biology articles for a while, except in collaborating in some review. --cyclopiaspeak! 09:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You mention "good academic sources are easy to find online". This may be true of individual species but these are of no use at the level of a higher taxon, unless merely for use as an example. I am currently expanding the article Boring clam and propose waiting for the end of my editor review before deciding on whether to continue editing biology articles. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This may be true of individual species but these are of no use at the level of a higher taxon - This is utterly wrong and only shows you have no real familiarity with academic literature. You can find loads of high quality academic sources on higher taxa. Here is what I found on Gastrotricha in five minutes of googling: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. --cyclopiaspeak! 12:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, you're right. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry that all of this came down on you this way, I hate the way AfadsBad attacked you. I think you should also understand where she is coming from however -in science (but in general when writing a reference work), precision and accuracy are paramount. I know how it goes -you read a few things, you think you sort of understood, you put the thing together. Everyone here has probably been guilty of stuff like that. I often write articles on subjects that are not my cup of tea, even if still in biology, and I know I get confused reading the papers there, because some things will not be familiar. The issue here however is that you did so for a ton of articles and little inaccuracies begin to pile up. Thus the case. In these cases the best thing to do is to be conservative, just writing down what you are sure about, and perhaps asking some relevant wikiproject. I hope all of this will solve for the best, and everyone will learn something in the process. --cyclopiaspeak! 14:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Take this edit of mine as a further example. The taxonomy in the taxobox puts Tridacna in the family Cardiidae, subfamily Tridacninae. The source you state for "smallest of its family" considers Tridacnidae at the family rank. So it is inconsistent with the taxobox, because there the family is Cardiidae. Point is, as far as I can read, Tridacnidae has been downranked as a subfamily of Cardiidae, therefore the right way to interpret the source is that the boring clam is the smallest of its subfamily, Tridacninae. It may well also be the smallest of the family, but I found no source about that. This is the kind of little inaccuracies that pepper some of your articles but are hard to find. Nothing terrible, nothing that changes the world, but quite worrying if it piles up in many articles.--cyclopiaspeak! 14:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And again. The source never gives pink alone as a colour of the shell, as far as I can tell -it talks of pinkish-orange. Neither it says the colour is only on a band, but that these colour may also form a band. --cyclopiaspeak! 14:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What you stated in your post of 14.08 is about right. I also saw and responded to your comments on the editor review page. The first point you make there is very good, the other two I thought not so. When writing an article you have to summarise the source without close paraphrasing. This means words and sentence structure have to differ from the source. Your "slightly to moderately elongate" is identical to the source and is close paraphrasing. Finding a different way of saying it is challenging. You did not like my attempt.
Editor Stemonitis used to monitor all the new arthropod articles including the ones I wrote, but unfortunately has not edited for several months. I have also collaborated with Casliber and Jimfbleak in bringing bird articles to FA. If I get topic banned after making a complaint about being harassed, it will be a victory for AfadsBad, and imagine the jubilation on the Wikipediocracy forum! I sincerely hope that you will find some other solution and meanwhile I will do my best to write accurately and succinctly. By the way, AfadsBad follows me around and is probably monitoring this discussion. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer to answer you on the editor review page, no need to make new threads everywhere.--cyclopiaspeak! 19:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure some of AfadsBads points are right, but Black Kite set the parameters for the review and I would like to see it concluded. You pick up such trivial points such as the colour of the branches of Millepora alcicornis. Don't you think white is a paler colour than the others mentioned - I try not to close paraphrase, but you don't seem to appreciate this? And did you see that I stated that I had only just started working on the boring clam article (not boring at all it seems!) and therefore it was wrong to start condemning it at that stage. Casliber commented on this in the discussion on Glyptonotus antarcticus. Black Kite has had his review hijacked and I would like it concluded. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • White is paler than any other colour, but paler does not mean white, it means "closer to white but not quite". So if you say "paler" it means "pale, but not white". Which is completely different from "white". Yes, I do not appreciate when your attempts at "not to close paraphrase" mean that you falsify or fabricate information. But you are still blissfully incapable of understanding this. --cyclopiaspeak! 13:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • And don't try to give me the "I just started to work on it..." excuse. On Millepora you did the same kind of mix up with descriptions, and we talk of January 2012. That you were still working on the article means nothing: we are not talking of incomplete information, but of false one.--cyclopiaspeak! 13:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rereading this thread and responding to the final point, when writing an article one may find a fact from one source and add it to the page. This fact may be contradicted by a later-found source or stated in some better way and one may alter the article being built. The article evolves as it matures and only in its final state should it be criticised. It is more satisfactory when writing a new article as this can be done in user space, however, when the article already exists as a stub, all its evolutionary stages are visible. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am working on an article on a whitefly in my userspace. Describing its eggs, my source gives their colour as "yellow to tan" and I have used the words "yellowish-brown". Do you consider this original research? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Cwmhiraeth: Hi, thanks for asking! Not OR, but bad paraphrasing. Yellow to tan is a range of colours -they can be yellow, tan, or whatever in between. Yellowish-brown is a single kind of colouring. Also, "brown" implies something quite darker than "tan". I would paraphrase as "from tan to yellow", but keeping the original words for the colouring.
    • I notice another slightly misleading sentence. You write "usually on the underside of a leaf". The source states "...surface of a leaf, usually on the underside". There is a difference. "Usually on the underside of a leaf" can mean that sometimes they can be anywhere else -like, on the stem of the plant. The source instead says they are always on a leaf, and often on the underside. I would write "on a leaf, with a preference for the underside", or something like that. I hope it helps. --cyclopiaspeak! 08:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for these helpful comments. I think I will go for "from yellow to tan" because many such insects have eggs that darken as they age. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, many do, but we can't just do the jump... However, as long as you do not state or lead that they actually darken (unless stated by source, of course!), then it seems okay to me.--cyclopiaspeak! 11:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 09 April 2014

The Signpost: 23 April 2014

Please comment on Talk:Seahorse

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Seahorse. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

QPQ

Since you have more than five WP:DYKs you need a WP:QPQ. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know, sorry. I was going to do it later.--cyclopiaspeak! 15:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Review done.--cyclopiaspeak! 15:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Duly noted. Nice article. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:37, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and thanks for expanding it! --cyclopiaspeak! 15:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A.D. or C.E.? Probably needs a conversion for litres to English. You are welcome. 7&6=thirteen (☎)

Maybe tthe hook should be modified. Also, maybe the hook should have the name Speyer wine bottle directly in it? And what about the picture? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know if A.D. or C.E. is better. If you want to propose an alternate hook, be my guest! I thought I linked the picture in the DYK nomination template, but probably I got it wrong (I do DYKs rarely and I always do errors in the process).--cyclopiaspeak! 16:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond on the template. I am not very good at this DYK stuff either. Even though I actually have a lot (they are buried mainly in my archives), I usually was along for the ride as a passenger. Somebody will help, I expect. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All that stuff is cleared up. I've nearly doubled the size of the article from where you started. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was a well said "fancy flight of imagination. And it was in the soruce, and there is another one (which we have noit linked to) that said basically the same thing. But I defer to you, since you started it all. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, sorry if I'm coming to you just now. Thanks a lot for the awesome work you did with my stub and the DYK! I am sorry I felt like removing that part, it was cute to read but seemed a bit fanciful and distracting... Maybe can be put back in a more compact fashion? --cyclopiaspeak! 16:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would say we could put it into a footnote. I know how to do that. I was a little sad to see it go, asit really was more literate than most of Wikipedia, and I liked the alliteration and the links. I'll put it in and you can take a look and get rid of it if you like. I would rather collaborate than edit war. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Take a look. I don't know how to put a footnote within the note. If you wanted that, one of the contributors to "Yank" Levy managed it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:31, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have some concerns I've expressed at the template. Maybe we need to think of a slightly modified hook? template Please comment there. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:37, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lest we misunderstand one another. If you choose not to leave those two references in I will pull my tick. Reuterdahl, Magnus (March 25, 2011). "A few words on prehistoric and historic wine imports, etc". Retrieved April 26, 2014. Reuterdahl, Magnus (December 10, 2011). "Should the Speyer wine dated to ca 325 AD be opened?". Testimony of a wine junkie. Retrieved April 26, 2014. I will pjll the tick. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand what you mean by "pull my tick", sorry. But whatever you mean, Wordpress blogs are not WP:RS. Could we discuss this at the article talk page? Thanks! --

cyclopiaspeak! 17:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I pulled my tick at the template. You can't have a block quote without the source. Best of luck. You're own your own. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which block quote? What are you talking about? I am not following, sorry.--cyclopiaspeak! 17:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You deleted it and choose not to figure it out. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I am more and more confused. You added two references from two Wordpress.com blogs. Now, blogs are usually not reliable sources, so I did the obvious thing and removed it. What else should I have done? What are you actually talking about? And what has this to do with the two hooks in the DYK? Really, can you explain? You seem to be sort of taking it personally, from your tone, and I truly do not get it. --cyclopiaspeak! 17:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of tea for you!

Thanks for creating the new Speyer wine bottle article, and for expanding Wikipedia's coverage of notable historic container and wine topics. NorthAmerica1000 02:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks! --cyclopiaspeak! 11:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for the new article. NorthAmerica1000 12:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since you are here, would you mind reviewing the DYK hook? The previous editor who reviewed it didn't take well that I didn't accept a couple of unreliable sources in his (otherwise good) expansion. See by yourself what do you think. --cyclopiaspeak! 14:32, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 April 2014

You offered to help!

At my editor's review you offered to help me improve my article writing skills. InvertZoo has been giving me instruction and would appreciate some input from someone who is "capable of very careful checking and prepared to call you on things that seem inappropriate." I think you answer the description of someone who checks carefully and I would appreciate it if you could look at the two linked articles, this and this. The instruction from InvertZoo is on the talk pages and you could comment there. Thank you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I gave some feedback on your octopus article; I can't check the other one right now. Many thanks for asking, I am very happy you are taking it so constructively. I understand the review has been bitter and painful and also I have not been as nice as I could have been, so apologies for ruffling feathers. But that's a bit how scientists can be... I hope I can be of help and that we can make the encyclopedia better together. --cyclopiaspeak! 10:03, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 07 May 2014

Please comment on Talk:Voting system

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Voting system. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of The Ganymede Club for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Ganymede Club is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ganymede Club until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.. --Bejnar (talk) 15:33, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 May 2014

The Signpost: 21 May 2014

Primitive Species Template

Not sure why you have targeted the Primitive Species template, but please stop your deletion attempt. AtsmeWills☯ talk 01:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am not going to stop it. The whole concept of "primitive species" makes no sense biologically, and your template seems to put together such defined species arbitrarily. This is bad science, bad biology and misleading to readers.--cyclopiaspeak! 09:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant the Primitive fish species template not Primitive Species as I misstated above. The template simply links a series of articles to a finite group of ancestral fishes that have remained relatively unchanged from the earliest fossil record. It actually does have a very important and useful purpose. Many of the articles that are linked in the template describe primitive characteristics of the respective species, and even include the word "primitive" in the lead. See the WP article on Primitive (phylogenetics) which states "in the sense most relevant to phylogenetics means resembling evolutionary ancestors of living things and in particular resembling them in the nature of their anatomy and behavior." AtsmeWills☯ talk 03:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You know, Cyclopia, if you had simply expressed your views before charging in with a deletion request, followed by all your recent deletions of the term "primitive" from the articles I listed at the template discussion page, I would have welcomed your input. Mr. Fink and I collaborated before adding the template which has always remained open to suggestions and improvement. Basal may be a term you know well as a biologist, but most Wiki readers will think it refers to an herbal seasoning. The articles in WP aren't scientific research papers that are read only by biologists with doctorates. There actually are groups of ancestral fishes that have undergone very little morphological change since the earliest fossil record which means they have retained primitive characteristics. The template is correct, and actually can prove beneficial to the majority of Wiki readers. I do appreciate and thank you for the recent adjustments you made to the template, but wish you had gone about it differently. AtsmeWills☯ talk 21:33, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows Calendar

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows Calendar. Thanks. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

Misplaced comment on primitive fishes TfD?

Did you mean to put this where you put it? I thought it was an indentation mistake, but now it seems more complicated, so I don't feel like I can fix it for you.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch. It was meant to go after my own last comment, sorry.--cyclopiaspeak! 23:00, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:5:2 diet

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:5:2 diet. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 01:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 May 2014

Sturgeon article

Cyclopia, I do like the improvements we've made to the sturgeon article, and wish we could have started off that way instead of the way things are now in the template and category Rfds. FYI - I recently took the alligator gar article from a "starter article rating of low importance" to a "Class C rating of mid importance", and I'm shooting for GA status on it and several other articles. I welcome quality collaboration on the other articles in the series.

When Mr. Fink and I collaborated on a title for the template, "primitive fishes" seemed to fit best. The term is ubiquitous, still in use in scientific journals, and most readers can quickly identify. The template and category are strictly navigational aids, nothing more. I don't know how much more I can emphasize their benefits in linking a specific series of articles that are relevant to a finite group of magnificent ancient fishes. I saw where you deleted "part of a series" from the template title, and also removed the IUCN Red list link from the template. The species listed on the IUCN, and/or protected by CITES are of the utmost importance to link as they are probably among the most sought after by a wide range of readers. It needs to go back on the template. What was your reason for removal? I also think the template is a bit too small, although I don't object to reducing its size from the original. In fact, I prefer it. I asked Mr. Fink to look into reducing its width, and he said he would look into it. I think he got busy on something else. Anyway, please try to think outside the taxobox to see the benefits of the template and category as navigational aids. AtsmeWills☯ talk 23:24, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme: If you want biology articles to go to GA status, the first thing to strive for is accuracy. The problem is not in your template wording, is in the concept. There is no such thing as a primitive modern organism in biology. The sooner this gets in your head, the better. The concept that "most readers quickly identify" makes no sense. It is just an illusion, a misconception due to an inaccurate view of how evolution works. Therefore the template (and category) bring no benefit whatsoever. It promotes a scientific error. You are tricking your readers into believing a falsehood. Please stop. --cyclopiaspeak! 23:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Speyer wine bottle

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfC/U

Dear Cyclopia, as you know in the past I experienced some difficulties dealing with User:Director. For this reason I have filed a RfC/U to discuss about Director's conduct, because I genuinely believe he dealt with me with improper language (inaccaptable, regardeless of the difficulties of communication we experienced). I did not file an AN/I because I am not looking for a sanction but rather I would like to have a large discussion about the issues I have dealing with Director. I honestly believe I am not the only one experiencing this problem.

I need two or more users certifying the basis for the dispute (they can be "Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute" or "Additional users endorsing this cause for concern"). It is a very bureaucratic process but it's like that. Please note that if by the 4th of July 8:30am two users have not certyfied the basis for the dispute, the entire RfC/U is archived and I will have to edit an AN/I which I would like to avoid.

You can access to the RfC/U form at [[7]] and fill the section "Users certifying the basis for this dispute". Silvio1973 (talk) 19:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bowfin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Taxonomy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bowfin assessed

Congrats - our collaborative efforts made a difference. [8] AtsmeWills☯ talk 22:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ehm. Sorry, but...Is this some kind of joke I don't understand?--cyclopiaspeak! 22:47, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No joke, we're being happy that our collective edits at Bowfin are making noticeable improvements.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:43, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if true I'd be very happy , however I fail to see how that diff means something in this respect. The importance scale has to do with the topic, not with the article quality. Now, if we want instead to attempt to make Bowfin a GA, that'd be nice, and I'd be happy to help.--cyclopiaspeak! 10:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When I first started editing the Bowfin article, it needed more info. See [9]. The link shows how much more info was added since we all began editing. It's hard to rate an article with any level of importance when it's barely a starter. The next sequence shows the rating after our collaborative efforts: [10] right up to today: [11]. If you'll read the importance rating, it defines mid-importance as follows: This article is relatively important to this project, as it fills in some more specific knowledge of certain areas. We did good, and there's more to come. AtsmeWills☯ talk 23:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I am not sure this is actually the case but well, let's take it as an incentive. I am also happy that you are doing some positive contributions as well. When you are not trapped in defending some pseudoscientific terminology, you can do good . If you like to help knowledge about these beautiful creatures, this is the real way to go. --cyclopiaspeak! 23:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can recognize a good thing when I see it. I changed the template to "Living Fossil Fishes". Epipelagic said he'd be willing to collaborate if I went that route. Your thoughts? AtsmeWills☯ talk 23:49, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmmm. It sounds somewhat better, even if I'm not exactly fond of it either. Will have a look.--cyclopiaspeak! 23:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's like hearing a really good song for the first time. You have your doubts, but after you've heard it the 3rd or 4th time, you want to keep playing it. Living Fossil Fishes. AtsmeWills☯ talk 23:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Poetic. Can you link me the chat you had with Epipelagic? --cyclopiaspeak! 00:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please show the link. If I agreed to that, I must have accidentally eaten some Sarpa salpa. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Following is Epipelagic's statement: If you are serious about improving Wikipedia coverage on early fishes and fishes which are "living fossils", I would be happy to work with you. [12] I went the "route" of "living fossils", and dropped the "primitive fishes" terminology which is what my above statement implied. AtsmeWills☯ talk 03:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Following is another reference: Most of the time when you were talking about "primitive fish" you were talking about living fossils. That does lend itself to categorisation, and indeed there is a category called Category:Living fossils. So you don't need to talk about "primitive fish". 22 references to the term "primitive" in this article alone.... AtsmeWills☯ talk 03:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Improving coverage and having a more reasonable category is quite different from having a template burdening the pages with an arbitrarily chosen one of the many possible qualifications of a topic. I suppose what Epipelagic said is that it would be better to work on the individual articles and to use the Category:Living fossils. Yes, now at least the template does not mislead readers, but I still do not see any positive coming from it.--cyclopiaspeak! 09:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It will serve a substantial benefit. The success of navboxes can be seen in this (uncontrolled) study of this navbox, which has shown that in the month following its creation, readership of the articles contained within increased by 8.5% (an average of 406 views per article) and editing of these pages increased by 37% from the month prior to its creation. [13] Considering the category Living fossils is so broad, it is difficult to find fish in the list. You have to know what fish you're looking for which makes the category practically useless. By the time a reader starts looking through the list of living fossils, the chances of being distracted are increased. AtsmeWills☯ talk 12:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Increased readership is not necessarily a benefit. We could also add topless models to our pages to increase page views, but for several obvious and less obvious reasons we do not do that. This is not a commercial website that needs page clicks. This aims to be a free encyclopedia. Accuracy and clarity are more important than page clicks.
You are correct that the category "Living fossils" is very broad. Well, then we probably won't have any navbox related to it -we can perhaps have a List of fish considered living fossils. Nobody is hurt. You really should get out from this "let's get more readers!" mindset. This is not what we're here for.--cyclopiaspeak! 13:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the real reason behind all this debate is because you feel the navbox is intrusive, I understand. A list is a viable option, and one we could definitely agree on. I am actually gathering photographs to add to some of the articles, and could use the space occupied by the navbox. I support the list concept. AtsmeWills☯ talk 21:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for sure it is one of the things that put me off of the navbox. As Epipelagic explained, we can't have a navbox for every single possible feature of a set of topics. I was much more concerned with the misleading wording, without any possible context that allowed at least an explanation, and the consequently somewhat arbitrary inclusion criteria - all things that made it even less a plausible navbox. About the list, instead, I think that should present less problems and I would not challenge its existence. A list can provide better context and explain briefly what are we talking about. --cyclopiaspeak! 21:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request

The article Gastrotrich was tagged for reassessment during my editor review. It seems that it was an "individual reassessment" and as such, should be concluded by the user who started the reassessment, the rules for this are here.

Now I don't think that AB will wind up this reassessment nor do I propose to ask her to do so, so I wondered if you, as an uninvolved user who knows the background of the matter, would consider removing the reassessment tag (unless you think that other criteria are unmet). Josh Milburn did the original review in February this year and is a well-respected reviewer. Thanking you in advance. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:35, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with GA intricacies, but I will have a look.--cyclopiaspeak! 10:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Um, apparently I should not remove the tag. I will ask.--cyclopiaspeak! 10:44, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There was a reply on this problem here. Do you feel like being bold? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up, I'll close that. --cyclopiaspeak! 08:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 June 2014

regarding primitive fish

Respectfully, you stick to your guns as a biologist abit. You do mention (speaking from what I've read at the template only) wikipedia policy. However your arguments require a review of policy and other things. If for instance you call something a psuedoscience it's helpful if that claim is verifiable. Which obviously it is verifiable but to me it's helpful if you help in that verification process. Also I would like to mention the part of the discussion about, "Citing from scientific research papers is WP:OR." While unsure it does seem to me that they are speaking directly of primary sources and specifically talking about editor interpretation of primary sources. Which I haven't reviewed the sources in question or any other sources for that matter. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, but I am not sure I understand what you mean with your message.--cyclopiaspeak! 22:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do beg your pardon. Regarding some of your recent conversations bout primitive fish, living fossil fish, or what have you. I don't think the editor in question got much of your case and if you review the conversation you may see why. On the same end I think may not have understood that editor either. Some of which could be key to your conversation. If you have not abandoned that conversation I do ask you to consider going back thru what has been said. Anyway, Good day.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 12:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Honorary degree

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Honorary degree. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bowfin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scale (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 June 2014

An editor's barnstar for you...

The Editor's Barnstar
For your expertise and knowledge in making a bad article good, a good article better, and a better article outstanding! Atsme☯Consult 04:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Awww, you are too sweet. I am actually happy that despite starting sour, we're actually working together to make articles better.--cyclopiaspeak! 08:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 June 2014

Please comment on Talk:Cold fusion

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Cold fusion. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 June 2014

Request for comment

There is a proposal for a merge of certain information in the article Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) to the Steven Emerson article, and then deletion of the IPT article because there is no such entity. The article was created and includes information based on the pretext that the Investigative Project on Terrorism actually existed as a non-profit entity. It did not, and still does not. What did exist is Steven Emerson's think-tank, The Investigative Project, and Steven Emerson as a CNN reporter and later as an independent terrorism expert. He founded the Investigative Project on Terrorism FOUNDATION years later - April 2006 - which is the only official non-profit foundation organized legally. Unfortunately, editors are trying to combine all of Emerson's past work as a CNN reporter, and individual terrorism expert (dating back to the Oklahoma City bombing and before) into one big hodge podge of inaccuracies in the current article, IPT. Please read the discussion at Talk:Steven_Emerson#Merge and delete the IPT article. Thank you in advance. Atsme☯Consult 18:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cyclopia&oldid=615049818"