User talk:Cybercobra/Archive 1

NOTE

Prior to late Sept 2009 (the CobraBot-OCLC brouhaha), I managed my talkpage by blanking resolved sections; therefore, they are not in this archive. Instead, consult my talkpage's history. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Why are you adding links to OCLC to book articles?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Please centralize any further discussion to the Village Pump thread. --Cybercobra (talk) 17:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

---

I notice that you are adding links from articles about books to the site of Online Computer Library Center? For instance, I have noticed you recently added such a link to the article Dragons of the Dwarven Depths. Why are you adding links to this company? Who is benefiting: you, OCLC or Wikipedia? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It benefits Wikipedia (by making our articles more complete) and readers who want to easily find books at their local library; I suppose OCLC might see a traffic increase, but their a non-profit, so...; It's a standard field in the book infobox, I'm just filling it in in an automated fashion. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Surely library catalogues enable readers to find books at their local library? This website is not a library catalogue is it? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

(Note: By "this website", I assumed (in hindsight, probably incorrectly)that you were referring to Wikipedia)
Well, depends on your definition of library catalog I suppose. We do list books and metadata about them (title, author, kind of book, pub. date, etc). (Although I do agree there is a limit, which is why I disfavor our non-author-related bibliographies). I would say your issue is more about Template:Infobox Book having the |oclc= parameter in the first place than about CobraBot's task, which is entirely dependent/contingent upon said parameter. That said, we already link ISBNs to a page which itself helps people find a copy of the book, so I don't see this as much different. The links are useful and don't seem to violate the external links policy. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It does not depend on my definintion. OCLC is not a library catalogue. Right?

OCLC operates WorldCat, which is a library catalog and is what the |oclc= parameter links to. It could just as well have been |worldcat=, except that conflicts with their website's nomenclature. --Cybercobra (talk) 10:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I do benefit in that this gave me an excuse to write a bot :) --Cybercobra (talk) 10:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

What benefit is it to Wikipedia? None, as these links run contrary to WP:LINKSPAM What is the benefit to the reader? None, as the information in the links provides no new information that cannot be obtained by using the ISBN. I think you are being a bit naive. Yes, you benefit from enaging in your hobby. Yes, the proprietors of OCLC benefit from increased advertising revenue earned when readers click on the links you have provided. However, from the point of view of building a better encyclopedia, these links offer no benefit, as they don't provide any addtional context that is already provided by the ISBN. I suggest you stop CobraBot and create a new bot to remove all these links. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

(A) WorldCat does not run ads (from what I can tell) and is a non-profit (B) As I alluded to above, your complaint is about the template, not my bot per se; you're arguing with the wrong person/about the wrong thing. --Cybercobra (talk) 10:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

So why does it feature links to Amazon and Barnes & Noble? In my experience, a company that says its "not-for-profit" is usually paying a large salary to its proprietor. I think the issue here is that Online Computer Library Center is not a charity per se. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, but perhaps I did not make myself clear. I suggest you stop postig links to OCLC until the issue of linkspamming is resolved. Could you kindly respond to my request? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Your first "request" was more of a rather insensitive suggestion, but anyway... I continue to hold that you're arguing with the wrong person about the wrong thing. Your issue is with Template:Infobox book having the oclc= parameter and/or the documentation/guidance therein regarding its use. --Cybercobra (talk) 12:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you are trying to sidestep the issue here. It is your bot that is creating all these links to Worldcat - it is not the fault with the template. Whether or not Worldcat is a legitimate reference to pepper Wikipedia with is debateable, and I admit that I may be mistaken as to the benefit such catalogue number. Personally I think it is of little or no benefit to readers, since the only use of the Worldcat number is to look up a book on the Worldcat site, which is as far as I can see is acting as an advertising billboard for Amazon and Barnes & Noble - its not a comprehensive cataloguing site per se.
However, setting that asside for a moment, I realise the real issue is still linkspamming, since it is your bot that is linking directly to the Worldcat site itself, which I am sure is not appropriate. Note that the link to ISDN is not made directly to the ISO site, but is made instead to Special:BookSources, where the reader can make their choice of what they do with this information. Forgive me if I seem abrasive or rude, but I have a particular dislike of spam, and I think what you are doing is to unwittingly add linkspam to Wikipedia by adding a direct link to this site, which in my view is not exempt from WP:LINKSPAM. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I would be grateful for a response to the issues I have raised as genuine conterns in my last email. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

In my view, the OCLC#s are useful in that they make looking up the book in libraries especially easy (albeit the field could be titled something less opaque), and OCLC/WorldCat appears to be a fairly large federation, so the "choice" of them is not entirely arbitrary; I view the advertising on their site as disappointing but not egregious, not warranting throwing the baby out with the bath water. It is somewhat duplicative of ISBN (although looking at one Village Pump comment, it seems OCLC#s might sometimes allow one to gloss over the trivia of multiple ISBNs for the same book; but I haven't checked that personally), but I say, the more metadata, the merrier (within reason; where exactly that line of reason lies, the two of us disagree). Alternative ways of "fixing" the problem would be to: (a) disable the OCLC field from generating a link [possibly with an exception if no ISBN is provided] (b) disable the OCLC field from displaying at all if an ISBN is provided [thus making it silent metadata]. I already mentioned such types of possibilities to the other concerned user. FWIW, I've suspended the bot (see User:CobraBot, Wikipedia:Bots/Status#Inactive_bots). Finally, my apologies regarding that last blanking; I had not noticed you had left a further comment. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I still have my doubts about the usefulness of Worldcat number, but I am not saying that the Worldcat number should not be used or added to articles if it is of some benefit. Rather, it is the direct links to the Worldcat website that I object to and I think they should be removed.
It appears that its introduction to Wikipedia was made at the behest of one editor back in June 2007 without any general consultation or discussion of the Worldcat number as a paramenter, so my guess is that the inclusion of the Worldcat number in the Template:Infobox Book was never intended to be in the form of a direct link. I therefore propose that not only should linking to the Worldcat website stop, but that it should also be rolled back by removing all of the links that have been created to date.
Would you be willing to create a bot that would remove the link, whilst retaining the Worldcat number? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Just want to say that I approve of populating |oclc= in {{Infobox Book}}. Any suggestion that OCLC, a global cooperative of libraries, or WorldCat is making somebody a profit is silly. The WorldCat catalogue is routinely used by librarians trying to satisfy inter-library loan requests. (I have also used it to track down obscure works.) The Cybercobra bot is doing excellent work. Please keep it up. (If you want to respond then please do so here.) HairyWombat (talk) 18:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

That is not the issue in fairness. The issue is the creation of direct links to the Worldcat site itself. If Cybercobra bot is creating linkspam, then it is not doing excellent work, even if Cybercobra had the best intentions. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

But the Cobrabot is not creating any links. Not a single one. Your criticism (with which I disagree) is of the {{Infobox Book}} template. Many different people have explained this to you many times in many different places. That you refuse to accept this fact does not change the fact that it is a fact. HairyWombat (talk) 15:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Really? Then how come they are appearing after edits? I think you are in denial. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Medicare and NPOV

I noticed you reverted my rv of the "scare quotes". I disagree, and think that the entire criticism section is, as currently construed, highly problematic and POV. But sticking to the immediate issue at hand, the charge that Medicare is "socialism" is a claim that is, at best, not demonstrated, and indeed is an unsourced POV claim. Ipso facto, to eschew the quotes implicitly legitimizes the claim. Because it is a claim based on a particular political perspective, it should be characterized as such. The onus of proof that Medicare is "socialism" is on the claimant, and the article should in no way give implicit endorsement of this charge. I look forward to your response. I am cross-posting this on the article talk page. Cheers, Arjuna (talk) 21:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Cobrabot

Why is the bot adding oclc info to pages that already have it (See Encyclopedia of Chicago)?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

PDFFiller

Hi,

My name is Vadim. I run Pdffiller.com. Got email from one of the users about the deletion of the page on the Wikipedia. I am a dyslexic and it is hard to communicate with out looking like a fool. I do not have an account on Wikipedia for the obvius reason. My participation would not be fruitful. In any case the reason why i am writing to you personally is the folowing:

While pdffiller is a commercial website we provide free services to people who are looking for a job. pdffiller.com/services.php Some of this individuals find us on Wikipedia. While i use Wikipedia on daily basis i have nothing to do ( or any one in the company as far as i know) with our Wikipedia entry. I believe one of the users have created it a while back. As far as i can tell the entry is not an advertisement of any sort and does help people to find the service. I understand your point completely but i think that the benefit of the entry on Wikipedia is a substantial one. Please consider my argument. if you like to talk you can email me at clearweb@gmail.com or call me at 617-877-3156

Thanks,

Vadim

clearweb.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.20.132 (talk) 18:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Re:Vandal-fighting

I love cookies, thanks. To be straight and honest, I am a slow vandal fighter. My strength is in reverting non-trivial (good-faith looking) vandalism. As a member of WP:ELEMENTS project, I am glad that elements pages attract so much attention (vandalism is a clear sign of it). That said, vandalism there is much too strong, and if you ever become an admin, please semiprotect those pages as much as you can :-). Materialscientist (talk) 04:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Gavin.collins

Wasn't sure if you were aware, but Gavin.collins has been blocked; see here. Don't know for how long. It appears he has a history of this sort of behaviour. With hindsight, I believe that the best way to handle Gavin.collins is to maybe respond once but to then ignore him. Also, sorry for using your Talk page as a general forum; I was trying to give you a rest. (If you wish to respond then please do so here. Also, don't hesitate to delete this whole section.) HairyWombat (talk) 18:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I've switched to archiving as a result of this debacle. Yes, I saw the block and watched with some interest; the existence of the RFCs was quite telling. Actually, the "forum" bit was referring to Gavin responding to your (pre-closure) remark in the section after I had clearly marked it with the archival template. Certainly an interesting episode though. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

My Talk Page

Look what you did to my Talk Page! (Use the link here as I have now blanked the page. I prefer to keep it blanked.) After I had puzzled over it for a while, I laughed. HairyWombat (talk) 05:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yeah, that was totally supposed to be an invocation of the {{talkback}} template... :) --Cybercobra (talk) 05:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Grandmother's Tale

I undid your addition of the OCLC because the there are actually two different books with similar titles. This one was published only in India and isn't listed at Worldcat, the other one has the correct OCLC already. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 14:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Cybercobra. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Image_workshop#Modify_photo_of_nude_male_for_anatomy_depiction.
Message added 05:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I definitely don't want to participate in the discussion on the Human page if your going to state that it matters what race the human is. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 05:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Wedding and Event Videographers Association International

I think you guys have made a big mistake in deleting this page. A VERY simple google search would have resulted in the organizations webpage: www.weva.com. I have worked in the wedding videographer industry for a number of years and this is a widely respected organization whose annual conference attracts videographers from all over the globe. I personally received a first place award for creative excellence in 2006 at the annual convention.

Please undelete this page as I have now provided you with an indisputable reference for the existence of this international organization.

www.weva.com

WEVA International

8499 S. Tamiami Trail, PMB 208

Sarasota, FL 34238

Phone: 941-923-5334

FAX 941-921-3836

Why are you adding links to OCLC to book articles?

See also: Wikipedia:ANI § User:CobraBot

This discussion has been archived (now to a separate page). My talkpage is not a general forum. Please centralize any further discussion on the CobraBot Infobox book OCLC# linking issue to the Village Pump thread.

Unless you wish to converse with me personally that is.

Blanking of discussions

Why this haste to blank discussions from your talk page? If other editors notice what your bot has done and want to discuss it, then the first thing they will do is to come to this talk page, and so should be able to see the previous discussion about this issue. You have made a good faith, but misguided, effort to improve articles: why not just accept that rather than try to hide the discussion? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Suffice it to say I treat this page like an email Inbox and like to keep it tidy. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you should consider using Template:autoarchivingnotice rather than blanking pages containing ongoing discussions, as blanking can be interpreted as a discourtesy. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Now trying it out. --Cybercobra (talk) 17:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

bits & bytes

I don't have a user talk page that I am aware of, but I did want to say that having come across the small box of terminology for higher numbers, I made good use of it.

I don't recall seeing it on the page I looked up the 'powers of ten' on, but perhaps it could be linked there in the future?

Finally, thanks for all the hard work you've put into this and other wiki projects. I am very grateful to you and all of your associates for this project. While I can't quote WIKIPEDIA in my academic work, I do use wiki for every paper I have ever written, finding the source of the original info and tracking it down for my own use- with MLA accreditation- in my papers.

Again,

THANK YOU!!!!

I don't have money to share now, but when I do- I'll send some. Unless you'd rather have oatmeal or choc chip cookies or homebaked bread?

Sincerely,

Sara Cooper

67.10.165.254 (talk) 09:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Navigation templates

Hello. I appreciate your effort to improve articles, and understand why you think the new table is better. But please keep in mind that more information is not always better: this is one of the reasons the templates are they are (and why we have links between articles!). I don't think we understand in the same way the consensus at TfD. As I see it, it was that your "new" idea of a template was not a good replacement for how the old ones were being used. Despite this, you effectively "deleted" the old, perfectly fine navigation template from all articles and replaced it with the new one. I haven't seen (m)any articles on Wikipedia that use tables of information in place of navigation templates. It would be good to discuss this before further such changes. Thanks, Shreevatsa (talk) 10:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy call - you've been named in a discussion

You have been named in the discussion at User talk:Jake Wartenberg#Outline of water.

The Transhumanist 22:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

List of string theory topics

Hi, I have undone your move of this article to "outline of" as there was no consensus for what is a consensus rename, see WT:OUTLINE. Until consensus for renames is established they should not take place. Thanks, Verbal chat 10:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Angelo Zawaydeh

I have started the article Angelo Zawaydeh. You noted in the SFBA talk page that you thought he meet general notability requirements, so I went ahead and did it. I am sure in the upcoming days we'll get a couple PRODs, if so help me defend the article? Thank in advance. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Rfa invitation

I was nominated for administrator position and would appreciate your comments here. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 08:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Mac OS X move proposal

Hi there,

In September you commented on the proposal to move Mac OS X Snow Leopard to its original title, Mac OS X v10.6. I believe that its current title is most appropriate, and have opened another proposal for Mac OS X v10.3, v10.4, and v10.5 to follow this new convention and be moved to Mac OS X Panther, Tiger, and Leopard, respectively. I'd like to establish a consensus on the subject, and since you were involved in the previous discussion on the subject, I thought you might like to offer an opinion here as well. There is only one vote other than my own so far, and I'd like to hear some more opinions rather than declare a consensus on this limited basis.

Thanks in advance. If you'd like to contact me, please do so on my user talk page or the proposal itself. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 21:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Question...

I noticed that you renamed a topic list to an outline.

Why do you think Outline of string theory should be named that and not "List of string theory topics"?

The Transhumanist 01:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Note that the transhumanist has gone against an agreement in proposing this without establishing a community consensus first. Also note that if it is named an outline, which is non standard and not supported by policy or guidelines, or the community (see WT:OUTLINE) the layout will not be as flexible, being controlled by the outlines specific layout rules - which go against WP:MOS and includes widespread GFDL license violations. Until the central issue is resolved, pages that started as lists should remain called lists. Verbal chat 07:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Cobra Bot 2

I would like to see a larger community discussion about this bot's task before it is approved. I suggest wikiprojects books as a place for posting a community discussion and announce the discussion from wikiproject novels and one of the community portal pagas (policy). This is just my opinion on where wikipedia should go with this bot. --69.225.5.183 (talk) 07:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I would like to see the first CobraBot get more community input before it continues. This is my opinion, do what you will, and it may have already completed the original task. Thanks for the talk page note. --69.225.5.183 (talk) 08:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

That link is included because it shows the task not only does not have community consensus there is existing consensus not to do the task, another bot which had been doing the task was stopped from doing it. So, with this knowledge, now that you've read that link, please stop CobraBot 1 until consensus for the task is found. --69.225.5.183 (talk) 03:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The issue for community consensus before the bot does anything is whether or not OCLCs should be added at all. Once the community decides they should be added at all, then it's time to see if a bot can be programmed to add them. This conversation about OCLCs at all includes the comment,

"One relevant comment, by User:Circeus: "LCCNs and OCLC numbers only become relevant for books without ISBN, and they aren't that commonly used as references."

If OCLCs are not commonly used as references, maybe the community doesn't want them used in infoboxes which are far more visible than references. What is the reason for including OCLCs in infoboxes, anyhow? Well, there's no community consensus about infoboxes, so, we don't know the reason.

It's for the community to decide, before you program a bot to do it. So, I ask you again to stop the bot and gain community consensus for the task. This is a requirement of the wikipedia bots policy. It should have been verified, in addition to the technical aspects of the bot, before the bot was approved and before it was flagged.

I'll post this conversation to the post at bots.

--69.225.5.183 (talk) 04:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Muminovs

I saw that you warned User:Muminovs by posting spam links. He added again in this article. Do you think he is up for blocking?--JL 09 _^q?c 08:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

C Hello World example

Hi Cybercobra, in C (programming language) you reverted my addition of a basic "hello world" example, with the comment "There can be only one!", I did undo that reversal because I think the difference between the two illustrates an important aspect of the language, i.e. the programmer's flexibility in how expressive and/or standards compliant code is written but with the same result. If you disagree please can we take it up on the C talk page? 86.26.9.106 (talk) 09:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Invalid ISBNs

On our recent journey, I believe you mentioned somewhere that your bot had collected about 100 invalid ISBNs, invalid, I recall, because they have only nine digits. Would it be worth while creating a bot to place a message on the Talk pages of these articles pointing this out, perhaps with some general guidance on how to find the appropriate valid ISBN? This would be done in the hope that the pages are on somebody's watchlist. It seems a shame to do nothing when we (in practice, you) could do something. (Please respond here.) HairyWombat (talk) 23:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It happens infrequently enough that I just trawled the logs and fixed them myself. I suppose I could alternatively do what you say, but it would make the bot less simple. Now if it's articles lacking ISBNs, those are quite more numerous: User:CobraBot/Without ISBNs --Cybercobra (talk) 23:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

CobraBot - no community consensus should not be running

I am discussing this issue with the BAG member who approved the bot.[1] I believe the issue should be discussed at talk:RFBA. --69.225.5.183 (talk) 08:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Katie Piper

Hey, thanks for the grammar fix at Katie Piper, only noticed it just now. Also, don't worry about the drama :), you're probably getting it worse then me. Best, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 09:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh you don't know the half of it... :) --Cybercobra (talk) 10:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Re Falcon (programming language) page

Thanks; I wondered about otheruses, wanted to play nice. And I'll admit to not being completely up on the protocols and best practices, but want to learn, so thanks again. BTiffin (talk) 05:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Ringtone (song)

The redirect discussion on Ringtone (song), an article you created, was boched, so I started an RFD instead. Comment here Purplebackpack89 (talk) 15:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

CobraBot 2 fast track and CobraBot 1 - request for deflagging

I'm asking the first bot be blocked and deflagged and the second one be stopped for now. I'd like community consensus on bot actions. I don't see it for CobraBot 1's task, and there were highly interested editors who were not alerted to the discussion about CobraBot 1 task who may want to be considered for CobraBot 2 task and flagging in general.[2][3] --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 16:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I have also requested that bureaucrats explain their reasoning in flagging the first bot.[4] --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 16:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Message in Spanish about H1N1 map by confirmed deaths.svg

Hola Cybercobra. Recibí tu mensaje, pero no tuve tiempo de actualizar el mapa. Vi que tú ya actualizaste el mapa y que dijiste que podíamos corregir algún error. No te preocupes, que el domingo voy a actualizar el mapa con los datos de esta semana, y de paso arreglaré tu actualización. Muchas gracias. ¡Adiós!

Fonadier (talk) 01:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

OCLC outside linkage to worldcat website

Here's the note I posted at the talk page of users who had discussed the issue at the infobox books template board. I didn't notify anyone from the AN/I discussion, though, and I just went down the list of posts at the template talk board. If there is someone you know who is particularly interested in the issue, please notify them.

A discussion about whether of not the infobox books template should include outside linkage from the OCLC number is posted here. You are being notified because you posted in a discussion at infobox books about this template functionality. Please stop be and include your input into the issue at the link. Thanks. --69.226.106.109 (talk) 06:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

objective c twiki

The changes of valid but bad styl made in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Objective-C&action=history

is from http://developer.apple.com/mac/library/documentation/Cocoa/Conceptual/ObjectiveC/Articles/ocLanguageSummary.html

search for "bad" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.131.62.115 (talk) 13:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

New external link for Joan of Arc

Hi,

It might be a good idea to had this link on Joan of Arc page. French site containing pictures and descriptions of Medallions devoted to Joan of Arc.Médailles Jeanne d’Arc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.170.174.89 (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

List of software products

If you insist on attempting to gut and merge List of software products when the AfD was closed as keep I will be forced to take this issue to a noticeboard. Please self revert and use the talk page. --Tothwolf (talk) 05:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

About ROC article

I have neither intention nor time to start the edit war. If you want to undo anything, please go to talk page and write the persuasive and detailed reason for doing this. We can talk it and edit or undo it after discussion. If you do not explain anything in detail and just undo it, then I have no reason to believe you are serious in doing this. Edit war is no good for both of us, particularly if you do not have such hobby. Amphylite (talk) 01:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Bibliography page guideline proposal

Hi Cybercobra,

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) 20:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

ConnectomeWiki

Thanks, I meant to comment after doing some research, but have not found the time. It obviously needs a lot more discussion at a community level before anything goes forward in BRFA. If the community decides they want it, a wikipedia experienced bot operator might be better, also. --69.225.2.24 (talk) 21:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussion on ConnectomeBot

I opened a discussion at the VPR (Village Pump Proposals) and advertised it at the External Links Notice Board about a bot you commented on at RFBA, ConnectomeBot. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 03:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Pointer dereferencing

A pointer references a value stored elsewhere in memory, and obtaining or requesting the value to which a pointer refers is known as dereferencing the pointer

Don't you think this is confusing enough? The term "dereferencing" suggests the opposite of referencing - a clear case of confusion to anyone with an ounce of common sense! —Preceding unsigned ken (talk) 20:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Mac OS X Snow Leopard "ZFS"

I've mentioned this a few times on the talk page, but the reference is a blog entry. It just isn't enough to support that Apple "announced" ZFS support. Apple never "announced" ZFS support. Sun did, and I think an Apple developer said on a mailing list they were working on it. That's it. I'm not sure how a link to a ZDNet article somehow allows history to be altered. I've flagged this as an unreliable reference, as dubious, etc... it just keeps getting reverted, apparently without anyone reading the talk page. The ZDNet blog is the original source for this claim, and it's simply wrong.

If I sound frustrated, it's because I am a little. But don't take it as a flame against you, I don't mean it that way at all. It just shouldn't be possible to put words into a company's mouth using a Robin Harris blog post. (And feel free to reply on your own talk page if you prefer that to bouncing back and forth, I'll watch it.) --Steven Fisher (talk) 21:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Would a link to this Ars Technica article be an acceptable reference instead? It not only covers it without drooling over ZFS, it's a look back that includes information from before and after Robin Harris's article. --Steven Fisher (talk) 22:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. If I've screwed it up in any way, feel free to fix. It was a pleasure "arguing" this with you... we came up with something better than either of us intended, I think. Cheers. --Steven Fisher (talk) 23:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

About source

Do you think the source that does not support the idea is a reliable source? WikiLaurent sticks to adding the sentence "In fact, the ROC was still at that time a one-party state with no regards for human rights" because the person Fung says it. However, 1, Fung never says ROC was one-party state after 1947. So why say "still"? 2, It is Fung's personal idea, far away from a fact, so "in fact" is obviously misleading.

WikiLaurent says WP:V protects reliable sources,but it is obviously not reliable but questionable source because by WP:V "the article is not based primarily on such sources". If WikiLaurent stick to that sentence, then it has to be rewritten as "Some historians believe that ROC was not democratic" and put into the references area.Amphylite (talk) 02:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Date reformatting

Ah, splendid! Someone who knows this week's consensus! Where is the discussion, please? Mr Stephen (talk) 12:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'll have a good read of [[Wikipedia:Mosnum/proposal_on_YYYY-MM-DD_numerical_dates when I get half an hour. Mr Stephen (talk) 14:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Java template

That guy, Ysangkok, is a loose cannon and has nothing to do with WikiProject Java. Although no much harm was done, I want to apologize for any bad surprise it caused, Thank you,
--  Alain  R 3 4 5 
^{Techno-Wiki-Geek} 03:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

syllabification

Actually, that probably is the correct syllabification of "Wikipedia". (Wells would probably argue that it's WIK-i-PEED-ee-a, but I doubt that would be intuitive to most speakers.) English vowels cannot normally end in "short" vowels /ɪ, ɛ, æ, ʌ, ɒ, ʊ/. And anyway, there are hundreds of articles that use this convention; if you wish to argue it, you should take it up on the talk page of the {{respell}} template. kwami (talk) 09:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Wiktionary LookUp

I left a couple of image links to screen shots of how the script works. I'd also really like to know in what way it didn't work for you. - Amgine (talk) 15:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

www.rebolhelp.com/forum

Cybercobra,

I notice that you keep removing my external link off the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REBOL page. The external link that I am referring to is http://rebolhelp.com/forum/. I feel that the link should be added to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REBOL page because the site is to be used as a site to help others with the rebol programming language.

Thank you, bf4648 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bf4648 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok I can understand how this site is concerned promoting a website under the section "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam". Why is www.reboltutorial.com allowed and www.rebolhelp.com/forum not allowed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bf4648 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

WHO's Nov. 19th Press Conference on Vaccine Safety

Hi Cybercobra,

This is the kind of thing I think it's very important to be highly proactive about, or else our credibility starts to erode. Yes, I added this to our article, but even with a heading, it's rather buried in. I'm not sure it's enough. People want to know the latest information, and I don't really blame them.

Maybe on some things we've been on opposite sides, but if we can find a way on this, I think that would be a good thing. Cool Nerd (talk) 20:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

no local events?

Your comments about local events and notability, I would like to comment. But my comment is not so profound that it deserves a place under yours in the Wikipedia talk page.

The way it is now, it allows the city mayor's election to be covered. However, Sam Adams (Oregon politician)'s gay sex scandal doesn't seem to qualify since it is local and is not an election. However, the Lewinsky scandal is covered as it had widespread national coverage.

Is that a good answer for your question? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Accessible, immediately skimmable information for parents

CyberCobra, I like long direct quotes! I'm going to try and start my own page tomorrow and might get a little bit out of your hair---and hopefully you can support the page and we'll identify it as something.

But, as I have stated before, I am not a doctor. Why in the world would I attempt to summarize Dr. Nikki Shindo ? ? It's an imponderable! Cool Nerd (talk) 02:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Diagnostic section, 2009 flu pandemic

Yeah, you missed it Cyber.. You forgot to say, per WHO, they go ahead and treat anyway on symptoms. The order is take swabs give Tamiflu receive results (one or two days later)

That's what kills you in medicine. 'Oops, we forgot to do an echocardiogram'<--that kind of thing

I ask, one thing, and one thing only, please do not make it personal (why are you following what I'm doing on other parts of wikipedia) I don't block you from doing your stuff, please don't block me from doing my stuff.

I think I can establish a case that excerpting WHO updates is well within fair use. I think there's a reasonable chance, I can also do this with news items (perhaps shorter excerpts). It ask that you give me that chance. Cool Nerd (talk) 20:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The section is on Diagnosis, not Treatment, but anyway I'm more than willing to assume good faith on your next contributions and wish you luck. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Earth Charter and Catholic Conservation Center

Dear Cybercobra,

Sorry to bother you. I left comments in the discussion about the Earth Charter article. I want to be sure you see them, but I'm not too familiar with how this all works. I'm a newbie.

Thanks much!

Bill Jacobs Catholic Conservation Center

RE: Debate Wiki

Thank you very much for responding to my query and telling me where to go. As a newbie, I really appreciate the help.

Again, thank you very, very much.

Sincerely,

Sean

Sean 0000001 (talk) 10:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Images on flu page

Yes I agree that the table does not make the best image. Having the same image twice though I do not think is good. Maybe we should just leave it blank until a suitable image can be found?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Swine Flu H1N1, (retitled) bacterial infections in 30% of fatal cases, list of causes of severe illness including viral pneumo, much overlap

Cybercobra,

That's as I best understand it. The hard part, the signs for bacterial a little more definite, viral pneumonia a little vaguer. Gave date for 'relaspe with high fever . . . ,' that's pretty much a direct quote anyway, and it's a colorful quote. Free feel to remove date if you like.

For severe illness in children: "Warning signs include significant difficulty breathing; inability to drink fluids or urinate for more than six hours; change in the color of the mouth or lips; or unusual behavioral changes, such as a crying child who cannot be consoled, or a child who doesn't wake up or walk or talk normally."http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-me-flu-guidelines21-2009nov21,0,2717012.story?track=rss

Yeah, I summarized, play ball for the time being to get the information out, but not sure we better off . . . well, you know (I am a prolific writer if nothing else)

The top's eroded (lead) Going to talk about it on discussion page. Cool Nerd (talk) 01:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

situation messier

Of course it is! First off, from New Eng J Med, if a patient has a chest X-ray showing pneumonia, "In the absence of accurate diagnostic methods," the patient should be given both antivirals and antibiotics. http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/NEJMoa0906695

And then, from the WHO briefing mid-Oct that I like so much (and I read it and jsut let it wash over me like water, read it again and take notes, and I'm please as punch I understand it as well as I do!)

"severe pneumonia is often associated with failure of other organs, or marked worsening of underlying asthma or chronic obstructive airway disease."

"Respiratory failure and refractory shock have been the most common causes of death."

http://www.who.int/csr/disease/swineflu/notes/h1n1_clinical_features_20091016/en/index.html

So, it's not nearly as neat and clean as 70% viral pneumonia and 30% viral, and I apologize for stating yesterday that it was. Maybe, maybe as a rough approximation, but a lot more potentially is going on at the same time, too. Cool Nerd (talk) 19:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Developer releases and poor sources

Can you provide a decent reason why we should be including information about rumored developer releases provided by sites with questionable reporting history? On the talkpage I see one person who asked if it was a good idea to include them, you saying it was good to include them and 3 people saying we shouldn't. Wikipedia might not be a poll, but it appears to be pretty much against including them.Unless you have an overwhelming reason to include them, the talkpage consensus is to remove them, which I will do, if you disagree you can open a rfc.--Terrillja _talk 17:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Convention, which convention?

Could you please explain, which convention you are referring to with your last update of 2009 flu pandemic? FHessel (talk) 18:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

swine flu, and today's (Dec. 3) WHO press conference

Hi Cybercobra,

The weekly WHO press conference, transcript and audio, is now available. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/multimedia/swineflupressbriefings/en/index.html

Cool Nerd (talk) 18:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

ë and ç

Sorry, do you know how to work with ë and ç or any other kind of diacritics at Linux, because here [5] these letters don't show. Thanks in advance, Guildenrich (talk) 17:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Russian club fire

Did you see the template that was on the top of the page, or did I place it while you were editing the page? Luckily I saved the page, but the general rule of thumb is not to touch the page until the template is removed. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It's alright, no harm was done. I always end up sounding like a jerk when asking that kind of question, but my original way would've been really mean. I ended up fixing the grammar issue in the major edit as it really was a bad sentence beginner. I also commented at the deletion of that template since I saw that deletion notice on that template. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Revert on 2009 flu pandemic

Hi - I note that you reverted my edit which moved a chart into center, commenting that it caused vertical spacing problems. Can I ask what browser you're using, and at what screen resolution? I'd like to take a look at it and see the problem you're seeing. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm on a PC, so I won't be able to check it out for a while. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the resolution too. I loked at it with Firefox 3.5.3, and I think I see perhaps what bothered you. I'm going to try it again momentarily -- would you take a look at it, and if it's still got the problem you're seeing just revert, and I'll leave it alone until I have a better idea as to what causing it. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

If it's OK with you, I'll leave it, but I won't object if someone else finds it less readable as you do, and reverts it. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Cybercobra!

I have done some editing over the years, but I am still very inexperienced. A few people have sent messages to me--but I have no idea of how to go about that! So I will leave a message here. I have met you at the H1N1 article and enjoy working with you. I see you have a pet peeve--something about bad reference posts? I am quite bright and I have looked at the way it seems to be done properly, but can't quite figure it out. I have found a way that seems to work: <xxx> (ref) Wikipedia ......and then I copy the url....</xxx>. Shouldn't this be acceptable?

In friendship, Gandy in Alna, Maine —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gandydancer (talk • contribs) 15:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou Cybercobra,

For fixing my troublesome links on Skinners Shoot, New South Wales. Your help was much appreciated. All other users and I should commend your skills.

Mjdrysdale (talk) 04:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

EDPL AfD

Fixed, thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

PageRefurb

I closed PageRefurb, could you take care of merging the templates (or enlist the help of the !voters)? Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

QIP stats

Do you think that poll has been ballot stuffed? We use similar polls and stats all the time on Wikipedia, so I'm not quite sure why else you would be so concerned about it. --Tothwolf (talk) 00:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the results of the unscientific poll are reported in the article as absolute fact, when unscientific polls are not at all reliable; thus they should certainly not be used as evidence of notability via popularity (now if the media commented on a poll's results, the topic may be notable via the WP:GNG due to the media coverage). If they are used all the time in Wikipedia, can you give some examples? Particularly relevant to the AfD, can you show one or more instances of articles using such polls as evidence of notability? --Cybercobra (talk) 00:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

So wouldn't that mean the section of the article referencing that poll should be rewritten/rephrased instead of being removed? Removing it entirely doesn't seem to be the idea solution either. Due to who is involved in that AfD, and since they've been following my contributions closely, I'm not going to specifically mention other articles at this time because they will simply AfD them for harassment purposes. Remind me after the ArbCom matter related to that editor is over with and we can discuss those articles then. Without naming a particular program or article, in terms of OSS software, one metric we've used in the past to help establish notability has been the Debian and Ubuntu popcorn numbers (not applicable for QIP of course). As with most stats, the popcorn numbers are only usable in relative terms and cannot say that "x is the most popular software program ever", as they can only be used to show the popularity of software program 'x' compared to the popularity of software program 'y' in the same dataset. The poll you removed from the QIP article I would consider to be in a similar category as it can only show relative numbers; i.e. out of 'x' number of people who contributed to the poll, 'y' claim to use program 'z'. --Tothwolf (talk) 01:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Right, well, arguing notability via comparative statistics (WP:BIGNUMBER) is a fairly weak argument for Keep; I won't deny that I have previously used such arguments for Keep !votes, but I think I've usually admitted to their weakness openly and included somewhat reasoned appeals to WP:IAR along with them, and even then Deletion was the outcome a significant portion of the time. As for including it in the article, it seems to put undue weight on that arbitrarily-selected poll; I don't think CNN.com poll results are appropriate for political articles, I don't see why the same principle wouldn't apply here. (Tangential Aside: I would personally think Debian's popularity-contest to be more credible than a web poll, but that's only relatively speaking.) --Cybercobra (talk) 02:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

While I don't think the stats belong in the article lead, I would think the best place for such stats would be a Critical reception section as that is one of the more common places to note such things. I tend to prefer stats such as the Debian popcorn numbers myself since they are machine generated based on installations and actual use. The downside to the popcorn stats is that they are opt-in. As for the QIP article itself, the sheer number of interwiki versions of the article should also be a clue as to its popularity with users since if it wasn't notable or popular, people wouldn't be inclined to write about it in so many different languages. --Tothwolf (talk) 16:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

header to footer move on template:2009 flu pandemic data

( I believe that FHessel has a script set up for automatically updating this table (see template talk:2009_flu_pandemic_data subsection:Please!). I asked him to add this note to the table so that he could do so in a way that does not break his script. I reverted your change to the table because I suspect it would break his script. I don't necessarily oppose the change for any other reason. If you want to move the note to be a footer it would be polite to ask FHessel to implement this change for you. That way FHessel can keep updating the table using the existing script. Cheers Barnaby dawson (talk) 19:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Durova's poll - yin/yang

Many thanks for that. (Too many thoughts to comment further. lol) Proofreader77 (talk) 02:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Extra points for edit summary. (excellent) Proofreader77 (talk) 02:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Rephrasing of table note

I propose the following:

• I'll change the text according to your suggestion the next time I update the table (=Monday)
• I'll move the note to the bottom only if all the other notes have been removed (approx. December, 24)
  

I would not move it now, because this information is really important, and it gets lost between other notes. Besides, I do like reading this reminder first, because the perception of the numbers is automatically different with this kind of caveat in mind. There is a fundamental difference to reading the numbers first (which forms a mental picture) and reading the footnote after (given that it is read at all), which is not changing the mental picture any more.
FHessel (talk) 11:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Arguements against theism/God's Existence

Please see talk page and comment regarding recent edits. NickCT (talk) 16:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/QutIM (3rd nomination)

I must say, some of these keep !votes are quite unique. I'm suspecting there is sockpuppetry happening here, do you? TheWeakWilled (T * G) 02:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Jabbin

You may want to revisit your !vote at that AfD. It's not the same source twice. I've fixed the article. Pcap ping 12:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for your kind help with the templates and formatting. John Watkins LLD (talk) 14:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Avatar

Please stop reverting discussed additions without participating in the discussion. -SpacemanSpiff 19:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Coffee

I was cleaning out overuse of Category:Coffee by moving articles into appropriate subcategories instead. Because it's a particular kind of drink made with coffee, rather than a very general aspect of coffee as a whole, it should be in Category:Coffee beverages instead of the main category. Bearcat (talk) 21:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Re:Largest City

By Population, I do not know how I should phrase it better though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Houstonbuildings (talk • contribs) 03:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for putting those warnings up on User Talk:MLIAfan7. Wasn't sure if it was kosher to give warnings for all of it all at once. :x Audiosmurf ^♪/♫ 02:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Cobrabot STOP

Just because an article title contains brackets, that does not necessarily make it unambiguous.

See eg Talk:Entropy_(information_theory)#Hat_link.

Similarly, please reconsider the change you made to Macedonia (region); and probably others. Jheald (talk) 14:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Lohengrin

Hi. The guidelines at WP:WPO say "If there are two (or more) operas with the same title, subsequent articles on operas of the same name take the name(s) of the composer(s) in parentheses. For example: Otello is the opera by Verdi, and Otello (Rossini) is the one by Rossini. (Normally, the first article to be created is also on the opera that is more well-known.)

I don't think that Sciarrino's opera is more well-known than Wagner's - do you? Perhaps you could undo your no doubt well-meant changes. Best wishes. --GuillaumeTell 01:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Moving film articles

I notice you have moved a few film articles from "Title (film)" to "Title ([year] film)" and then removed the hatnotes from the articles. If you make moves like this, removing the hatnote is not appropriate because the ambiguous title still redirects to the article. You should replace the old hatnote with a {{Redirect}} hatnote. Or you can redirect "Title (film)" to the appropriate dab page, but then you should clean up the ambiguous links you've created. Regards,--ShelfSkewed Talk 07:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Gruyère

I have suggested an alternative to moving Gruyère (cheese) to the above location at Talk:Gruyère, if you wouldn't taking a look and reconsidering. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 10:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for Review

Awhile ago you made a couple of edits to The Ku Klux Klan In Prophecy and there is currently a dispute at the page and I'm wondering if you would be willing to weigh in and offer your perspective. Thanks Buz lightning (talk) 21:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Revolver (album)

You'll need to initiate a WP:RM discussion for this case (I moved the page and soon reverted myself, see here). Regards, JamieS93 16:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Please be more careful, or stop altogether.

Please don't remove disambiguation links unless you are sure that they are superfluous. In this edit you removed the hatnote on Intensity (physics), even though Intensity redirects there. It would be better to leave superfluous hatnotes alone than to occasionally remove a necessary one by mistake. Please either be more careful, or stop removing hatnotes.--Srleffler (talk) 20:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Names of the Decade

Can you provide an opinion on the "Names of the Decade" rewrite debate?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2000s_(decade)#Request_for_consensus_concerning:_Names_of_the_decade

Artx (talk) 02:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation removal on Newfoundland (island)

I reverted Cobrabot's removal of the disambiguation links per WP:NAMB; it doesn't apply. Newfoundland is both a geographical entity with its own distinct history and an element of the modern Canadian province of Newfoundland and Labrador; interested readers may want either/or, so there is ambiguity here. There are also enough additional references to Newfoundland (as a dog, a naval vessel and a town in New Jersey) to warrant a separate disambiguation page.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 03:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Changing of Constant (programming)

• What is argument that system call or reflection API is not normall procedure?
• Also "circumvent" brings negative meaning
• For example Ruby allows change of constants without any system tricks: Constants are Changing
• See also: Self-modifying code, maybe one should add this link

--83.10.125.86 (talk) 04:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Greetings, and a proposal

Hi! I see that you are interested in Python. I am pursuing a project for a new wiki: Wikigears. I realize that is really hard, and that i didn't so much. But I hope you will join to make a better job: thanks! --Yamatteo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamatteo (talk • contribs) 17:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

notability

Oh, I'm sorry I forgot about you. It seems that there's agreement on the change you made about lasting effects. That's logical because something with lasting effects is likely to be a historical events and historical events are what encyclopedias are all about.

There is a remaining issue that needs to be cleared up. There are a number of people who believe that meeting all of the criteria is required (persistence, depth, etc.). Everyking takes a different stance (paraphrasing) that if there is a lot of coverage, it's notable. This could be the inclusionist general view and the deletion may want more restrictions. But let's not start calling people inclusionists or deletionist.

I fear that trying to make a rule then forcing people under gunpoint to follow it instead of their usual practice is doomed to failure. For this reason, I thought that a compromise may be helpful. The compromise is that all criteria should be followed but if one isn't, the others should be solidly followed. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

H1N1

The intro text now reads 14 deaths worldwide because the picture blocks out the number. Do you know how to fix that? Gandydancer (talk) 00:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, surprised you don't see it...it's about line 25, right next to that second box down. Gandydancer (talk) 00:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh! I have no idea - I don't even know exactly what those words mean...Gandydancer (talk) 01:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal

You are recieving this notice as you have participated in the Admin Recall discussion pages.

A poll was held on fourteen proposals, and closed on 16th November 2009. Only one proposal gained majority support - community de-adminship - and this proposal is now being finessed into a draft RFC Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC, which, if adopted, will create a new process.

After tolling up the votes within the revision proposals for CDA, it emerged that proposal 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

• gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

• ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing

The editors whose position was soundly rejected at Wikipedia:Software notability are very active at AfDs, and they keep voting according to their own standards, even if the no longer link to that essay. The arbcom decided that such behavior is unimpeachable, so the only way to counter their actions is to counter-vote the delete votes when they are made for invalid reasons. Please add Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion_sorting/Software, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion sorting/Computing, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion_sorting/Internet to your watch list. Pcap ping 15:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Template:Uncited quote listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Uncited quote. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Uncited quote redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so).   — Jeff G. ツ 06:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 January 22

Thanks for helping out with bundling nominations, however I would request that Splaser is kept separate, as it has a different reason for deletion and is not directly similar to the other "List of"/Weapon name articles I nominated. Hope this isn't an inconvenience, happy editing! --Taelus (talk) 14:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

No worries at all, I am thankful for others being around at RfD which is usually very quiet! Have a good day, --Taelus (talk) 14:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Irrumatio?

Please explain why you put a redirect link from Parenthetical referencing to irrumatio. --Forich (talk) 19:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

A warm thank you

Big thanks for taking the time to participate at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people, which will delete the vast majority of 50,000 articles created by 17,400 editors, mostly new editors. Bye. Ikip

Wheel of Fortune and other game show article title changes

None of the article titles were "unnecessarily detailed" or needlessly disambiguated. The term "Wheel of Fortune" has several meanings other than the TV game show, and there have been two different versions of the show in the U.S., not counting an unrelated program by the same name which aired in the 1950's. The article titles were fine as they were. Your changes detract from the information which they convey, and it would have been really nice if you'd bothered to discuss your proposed changes with those of us who've actually worked on those pages instead of acting unilaterally on pages that you've never been involved with before. JTRH (talk) 04:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, if you're going to move articles like that you need to change all of the articles that link to the old titles. Don't be lazy and just move an article and then not change Pages that link to "Wheel of Fortune (U.S. daytime game show)", Pages that link to "The Price Is Right (U.S. game show)", Pages that link to "The Price Is Right (1956 game show)", etc. Sottolacqua (talk) 14:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Please leash your bot

Your bot is enforcing WP:Namb badly, and doing it, as here, on a page tagged against bots.

This is a case such as described in the guideline: However, a hatnote may still be appropriate when even a more specific name is still ambiguous. For example, Matt Smith (comics) might still be confused for the comics illustrator Matt Smith (illustrator). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Please stop removing a useful tag because of your literal r3eading of a guideline. It will not be obvious that Orion (constellation) and Orion (mythology) are separate articles, not to mention all the Orions named for one or the other. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Please stop now. If this happens again, I will request that CobraBot's edit permissions are removed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I have already answered that: some readers will find it ambiguous with Orion (constellation), since, after all, the constellation represents the mythological figure. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It suffices that some readers may well find it so; two editors have now restored the hatnote. WP:NAMB is a guideline; like all our procedures, it is a thing of scotch tape and piano wire, not legislation. If the situation where two meanings of a term has separate articles even though they overlap were common enough, it might be worth altering the guideline.

Please read WP:PRO on why our procedures should not be followed to the letter. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

spa tags

I'm all for identifying single purpose accounts at AFD, but do you really thinks it's necessary to tag multiple posts by the same user in the same discussion[6]? This is just me talking, I'm not aware of any specific policy governing the use of the spa tag, but WP:SPA does repeatedly urge remembering that this may be taken as an insult, and that tag should be used with "sensitivity and tact." It just struck me as overkill, and slightly bitey. Just a thought. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. You have a point in that instance; should have just put the 1 in retrospect. Duly noted for the future. (*goes to file down fangs*) --Cybercobra (talk) 06:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Well you don't have to be so nasty about you son of a... oops, sorry, sometimes I get a little too used to people freaking out no matter how politely I approach them around here. Thanks for understanding, it's refreshing not to get yelled at for making such a suggestion. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Exclusive invitation

Cybercobra/Archive 1, Wikipedia:Wikiproject new user welcome wants you!

We are currently asking for concrete, constructive proposals on how to avoid the deletion of 48,000 articles created by 17,500 editors through sourcing. These constructive proposals will then be considered by the community as a whole at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people. Please help us: >> User:Ikip/Wikipedia:Wikiproject new user welcome << For now, participation on this userpage is by inviation only.

Ikip 03:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

thank you

thanks for your comments in trying to help the unreferenced BLP issue. I appreciate your thoughtful responses! Ikip 04:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Loved it!

I loved your "Vive liberté, égalité, fraternité!" comment :-) Really :-) Just thought I'll leave you a note. Best ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 09:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Article One of the United States Constitution/GA1

You look like you keep a watch on this article page. Issues have been identified at the GA review that you might be able to help address. Take a look if it is in your areas of expertise. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 23:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Follow up

Hi Cybercobra :-) What part of 5) and 6) do find objectionable? (Included them below for your convenience).

5) Many of the poor quality articles of low interest were written in no more than a couple of minutes by one person with few improvements over years time on site, so a deletion discussion that take hours of many editors time to complete does not make sense.

All organizations need to use their resources wisely. Our volunteer workers need effective and efficient processes to be put in place to do Quality review and improvement. Currently one user will write an article in a few minutes but our review process for that article will take much longer and involves numerous users unless it meets CSD. It is not practical for us to continue with this system of quality review for low quality and low interest articles. We desperately need to remove the embarrassingly bad articles from main space so that we are a creditable reference.

6) Improvements in the deletion process to make them more efficient and effective in managing poor quality articles is needed now. This could include speedy deletion for a subset of articles.

Removing poor quality/low interest articles from main space makes way for a better article on the same subject and lets us better manage the high quality content. Articles that go through a deletion discussion but remain unref or poor quality are not benefiting from the volunteer time put into that review. Leaving them in article space as an individual article is adding to the problem of a backlog of work. It is practical and reasonable for a minimum standard to be put in place for retaining an article after being reviewed during a deletion discussion. And for new BLP articles, new minimum quality standards are needed with speedy deletion as an outcome if they are not met in a reasonable time.

I'm interested in hearing your reply. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 16:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. :-) A few follow up comments.

Quality improvement needs a structure and organization. Our current method of tagging articles for clean up has not been effective as a way to get improvement to most articles. The deletion process too frequently has articles leave the process with little improvement. My primary interest is developing a new way to improve the quality of articles with BLPs being a top priority followed by other topics that are associated with living people.

Wikiprojects have the potential to be a source of energy for quality improvement but many of them need leadership to make them more successful.

While the current situation certainly has not been ideal in every way, the energy being put into BLPs improvement is pure goodness.

I'd like to keep in touch with you to discuss ideas about how to introduce systematic quality improvement into Wikipedia. Thanks again for your thoughtful answer. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 01:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Feynman point

Since you contributed to the article Feynman point, I'm asking you to respond to this question. Thank you. --bender235 (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Biographies of Living persons solution: Projectification?

As someone who commented on the BLP workshop, please review this proposal to see if it is something that the community would support.

Harsh constructive criticism is very welcome!

Better now than later. I am looking to remedy any potential objections by the community.

Thanks. Okip (formerly Ikip) 03:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

surprised by your support of speedy deletion for new blps, can you explain a little bit more why? Okip (formerly Ikip) 04:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Good points

I liked your ideas at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Biographies_of_living_people/Phase_II#Proposal by_Coffee.3B_a means_to_an_end, good points. I think Coffee is sincere in wanting to come up with a solution, therefore he will adjust to constructive comments. I will strongly support him for Arbcom if he comes up with an amicable, peaceful solution.

Lord knows I can never keep the positions of editors straight, one second I am arguing with them passionately, the next second I am advocating with them fiercely. Makes me want to be more of a diplomat to foster relationships. Okip (formerly Ikip) 08:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

i noticed, thank you. best wishes, Okip (formerly Ikip) 08:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Coffee modified

Coffee developed your ideas in his proposal.

Curious, and you can email me this if you like, why did you archive the comments, did you feel they were finished?

I must admit, that is much kinder than what I do, I simply delete. :) Okip (formerly Ikip) 08:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

User_talk:Cybercobra/Archive_1#Blanking_of_discussions I see. A well, can't please everyone. Most I can say on-wiki ;) Okip (formerly Ikip) 09:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

New encyclopedism

Hullo Cybercobra. I came across this article and tried to reference it, but could not find reliable sources that used this term to apply to the things the corresponding category does. I wonder, what was your original source for the article? Mahalo,  Skomorokh  15:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Hatnotes

Regarding this edit, hatnotes should be at the very top of articles, per WP:Hatnote. And there is a good reason for this. Theoretically, hatnotes are not really part of article content and so should be at the very top. Practically, it makes a difference on devices like mobile phones that scroll down the page one section at a time. It makes sense for users to see the hatnote before the Chinese text message, or any other message. LonelyMarble (talk) 19:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Redo on Religious naturalism

Remember your Revision as of 04:54, February 7, 2009 (edit) (undo) Cybercobra (talk | contribs) m (moved Religious naturalism to Religious Naturalism: make title agree with article usage) - this was undone by - 10:18, April 1, 2009 SoWhy (talk | contribs) m (41,526 bytes) (moved Religious Naturalism to Religious naturalism: requested move: capitalization) (undo) - Religions are capitalized and RN should thus be, although the words religious and naturalism are usual not. Manual of Style says so. I will take care of the article words if you care not to but I not sure how to change the article title back.--Jlrobertson (talk) 14:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks For This Cool Template

Hello, Cybercobra. You have new messages at Talk:Republic_of_China#Hatnote_Improvement.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

174.3.98.236 (talk) 10:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Tuple

Have you yet checked what I wrote in response to your info on quintuple at the bottom of Talk:Tuple?? Can you please, if possible, edit the References section of Number prefix to match what it says?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Any Wikipedian who I should contact instead of you who can help better?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I would like for info on the Tuple article and info on the Number prefix article to agree on the origin of the word quintuple with the latter still explaining why the word is not quinqueple. Georgia guy (talk) 23:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

In "change bla bla bla" format, I mean change at least one of Tuple (specifically the Origin of name section) and Number prefix (specifically the Notes section; note #5 talking about the words quadruple and quintuple.) Georgia guy (talk) 00:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

"Wikipedia" pron.

The only person saying they pronounce it "WEE-key-PEE-dia" was an anon. IP claiming to be the founder of the encyclopedia. I think we can safely assume the first pronunciation is unsupported. The way you reverted it, both pronunciations were wrong. I think this is one article we should at least try to get the pronunciation correct on? kwami (talk) 07:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

1984

You reverted edits on 1984.

I will assume good faith on your part.

If you do that, add a discussion page. Your revert in many readers opinions was invalid. Read the discussion page before you revert.

Thanks. Sliceofmiami (talk) 04:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a discussion of The Brotherhood that you obviously missed. Checked again. Sliceofmiami (talk) 00:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:PEREN

Hi. I noticed your comment in the discussion at WP:Oversight that the issue of sensitive wildlife has come up three times. I was aware of the Wikipedia:Sensitive wildlife locations proposal, but hadn't realised it had also cropped up elsewhere - can you point me at the other discussion(s)? Thanks. SP-KP (talk) 19:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Change of bold to italics on Correlation does not imply causation

Hi, I noticed you changed the bold to italics on the word "increase". I ended up reading the entire citation because the word wasn't clear enough. Won't undo the edit you made as I don't believe it to be incorrect, but is italics prominent enough? Maybe, I'm simply not sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.139.86 (talk) 13:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

As per your edit on my IPs (which is a gateway) talk page, which I am grateful for, I believe the word increase is key to the article, but I will defer to your judgement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.139.215 (talk) 13:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Notability of Software

Hi, thanks for your comments about Wikipedia:Notability (software) not getting consensus. I'd appreciate it if you could point me towards the original discussion about it being a new guideline, because it doesn't seem to be an obvious link on the page. Do you know why it failed? Thanks. cojoco (talk) 22:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Zeropositive

In a recent edit your edits summary says "0 is conventionally positive", but this is not true for English (as opposed to French) practice, see positive number, whence the abundant mention of "non-negative integers" throughout math articles. In any case the point is moot since the sentence you removed said other labels [than zero] that are not positive integers. Marc van Leeuwen (talk) 09:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Whitespace in Python

The whitespace issue in Python is a tired old canard. It doesn't belong in the first paragraph. It's like writing an article about fire engines, and talking about how non-aerodynamic and garishly red they are in the first paragraph.

Usually when someone starts talking broadly and dismissively about python, the first criticism (and possibly the last) is the whitespace thing.

Please see http://stromberg.dnsalias.org/~dstromberg/significant-whitespace.html for why the criticisms are unfounded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strombrg (talk • contribs) 04:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Fresno County

Hi, Cybercobra. I did the Fresno County seal per you request here. Hope it's to your satisfaction. --RA (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Trivium

Thanks for reverting my Trivium edit - per your comment, "Does not account for other uses" - my mistake, sorry. What I'd intended to type was Trivia (disambiguation) - which is what I've now done. Thanks for making me aware of my error. 92.2.208.239 (talk) 17:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Notability guideline

So let's get this straight, you're really, seriously claiming that the notability guideline overrides all other wikipedia's policies and principles. That if it's notable, you get to write an article on it no matter what?- Wolfkeeper 23:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Not in the slightest. I'm saying satisfaction of WP:N is not absolutely mandatory (i.e. "must") like your rephrasing suggests because (1) it's a guideline [albeit an important one] (2) WP:IAR is sometimes applied. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't look like it is a guideline. It says it's a guideline at the top, but the evidence is that it isn't; in fact it seems to override every other policy and principle, and seems to be deliberately written that way.- Wolfkeeper 21:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't know where else/how to send a message...

I saw that you reverted my edits on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act page, namely bringing back the reference I deleted. Probably the right course of action, but now I'm curious: the CS article gave different figures than the CBO report it referenced, can the CS article still be treated as a reliable source?
So there's no misunderstanding, I am leaving your edits in place as you likely know better than I (just a possibility :) and I ask simply to learn and know for the future.
(Oh, and is there a better place to "message" users? This area seems to be a bit of an imposition of me on you :S )
Cheers, 68.104.225.197 (talk) 06:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I have responded on your talkpage. Cheers, --Cybercobra (talk) 18:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Linux revert 2010/03/30 re: Minix

I mentioned Linus not liking the education-only license of Minix, because it would prevent other uses, including commercial. A real thing he has said in interviews. Why the revert? The point made could serve as counterpoint to the occasional accusation against Free software that it's anti-commercial or worse. (And the section was true). So why the revert? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.234.241.146 (talk) 21:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for that fix over on en.wikinews. It's nice to see other Wikipedians on Wikinews besides another handful of editors and I. --Mikemoral♪♫ 04:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Glad to be of service. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy grammar fix

Thanks for the courtesy grammar fix at Wikipedia talk:Upload :) --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 08:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

QS

Hi Cybercobra

I am Saint Cuthbert, author of the entry on QS Quacquarelli Symonds that you removed last night UK time. I am an expert on QS (but not on their books) rather than an expert on Wikipedia. I am sure someone of your experience is right that I have broken various formatting rules etc. But I am also sure that the old entry which you have restored is far worse. It has been flagged as quasi-advertising and as needing a severe edit, after all. The new version is a lot more recent and accurate and gives a far better impression of QS and its motivations. I wonder if there is some way of curing these formatting issues so that this flagged version of the entry can be archived away for good?

Thanks

Saint Cuthbert

Saint cuthbert (talk) 10:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

More on QS

Hi Cybercobra

I am still Saint cuthbert (nb lower case c), author of the version of the QS entry which you dislike on formatting grounds. Let me know today please what they are. As things stand you are responsible for the continued life of an inaccurate and misleading entry which has been flagged as too commercial, and I am anxious to have something that does a better job.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saint cuthbert (talk • contribs) 10:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

QS

Hi Cybercobra, much appreciated, thanks. Is it OK if I redo the order a bit - for example, the QS Intelligence Unit comes before the Rankings bit but in fact people really need to know about the latter before the former? Likewise the scholarships bit is a detail really and should come last. Also how do we get that "editing for grammar" etc tag removed?

Thanks again St c —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saint cuthbert (talk • contribs) 08:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Sidenberg - various commercial websites

In my Sidenberg article I used the phrase "various commercial websites" because I was unsure of Wikipedia policy regarding mention for-profit sites which charge a fee. I used Ancestry.com. I would gladly substitute this name for the phrase I used, if I was sure it was O.K. with Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elkmilok (talk • contribs) 23:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

URL for Ancestry.com

I slightly misread your note to me. You are asking for the URL. I can provide this. However, I am not certain if this changes as a search changes as a search progresses, I will check this. Of course, a reader who was not a subscriber could not access the information. If I do find that it changes as a search progresses, do you want the general address for ancestry, or as specific as I can get for "G. Sidenberg"?

Do you know if Wikipedia has a general policy on citing such sites?

Bill —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elkmilok (talk • contribs) 00:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Ancestry.com

The URL for ancestry is http://www.ancestry.com/default.aspx?o_iid=24987&o_lid=24987 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elkmilok (talk • contribs) 00:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Uniformitarianism

I reverted the additions about the opinion of a Young earth creationist to the Uniformitarianism article. Morris is not an expert on the subject, and his view is a fringe one, not suited to this page. Auntie E. (talk) 01:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

QS

Much appreciated, thanks for the great wikilearning i am getting,

cheers St c —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saint cuthbert (talk • contribs) 15:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Aran Islands#Further reading

Hi Cybercobra, in case you hadn't noticed a concern has been raised here about what looks to be your merge done here. I normally just check changes to that article to filter out the B&B and ferry ad links, but the Further reading section does seem to overwhelm the article, so wondering if you have any ideas how to nudge it into shape? Or at least can you fill me in on where the merge discussion was that resulted in your edit? Franamax (talk) 01:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

QS

Hi Cybercobra

Thanks again for that.

BTW who puts up the notice that a specific entry might need editing for style, grammar etc and how might it get removed?

I think that this entry is now a lot better (in so small measure thanks to you) and that we might live without it.

cheers Saint cuthbert —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saint cuthbert (talk • contribs)

Aran

ps the Arans are about my favourite place on Earth!!

First Amendment

Kudos to you for raising the issue. As you can see, I agree with you. I don't suspect we'll prevail, at least on a nose-counting basis, but it's a worthy exercise, even so. TJRC (talk) 21:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Virginia Tech Template Box

Hello, I noticed that you reverted my edit of the title of victims with wikipedia articles. I have posted my thoughts on the Talk Page and would appreciate if you weighed in. This isn't a big change, but I think it's important to recognize that common individuals do not associate the word "Notable" with things the same way Wikipedia editors do. I look forward to your reply on the article's talk page. Coastalsteve984 (talk) 22:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Ministry of Emergency Situations move

Yopu want to move Ministry of Emergency Situations (Russia) to Ministry of Emergency Situations and have tagged the latter for a G6 speedy to allow this. But I don't see any discussion of the move, or any proposal on a talk page. Off hand, a ministry is an inherently national thing and the dab tag of (Russia) seems like a good idea. Please discuss this on a relevant talk page before proceeeding. DES ^(talk) 02:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Propaganda

Thank you for giving me an example on the Propaganda page about how rediculous and tainted the Wikipedia is. You scrubbed my non-offensive (and yet true) comment at the bottom of the Propaganda page in less then 3 minutes. Bravo for proving my point that Wikipedia is, in fact, a major source of propaganda. Who did I offend by saying that there is propaganda on Wikipedia so you scurbbed what I commented? I admit that I knew it would happen. What you did is a form of bullying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.120.202 (talk) 13:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your help. Much appreciated.--JimWae (talk) 16:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

maths rating

When you add the math rating template to an article [7], please take a second to fill in the quality and importance parameters. Even if you just have a rough idea, it's better to fill in initial values, because otherwise a backlog of tagged-but-unassessed articles tends to build up. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Independence Day (film)#Requested move 2

Thanks for the notice about the vandalism. If you want to make this move happen, the supporters need to address the issue of primary topic. I did some digging and the fact is, that it appears that the newer film has a strong case for being the primary topic. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Primary topics

Hi. Thanks for leaving the talkback notice on my talk page. I am following the discussion as I have time but am not sure that I have anything valuable to add at this point, especially since I generally agree with a lot of what JHunterJ has been saying. Often, these discussions devolve into the same few editors going back and forth over the same points and get so long and esoteric that no one else bothers to read them. So far this one is pretty civil and sticking to the issue, so maybe something good will come out of it - mutual understanding if not consensus. I'm hoping to see what others have to say and consider their points, and I will comment there again if I think of something new to add. Station1 (talk) 03:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Earth

Sorry about that. I should have realized that that would not be clear to a layperson, or perhaps anyone who has not recently taken a dynamics course. I added notes with explanations for how those numbers are found from the values listed on the fact sheet. Let me know if it is still unclear. Thanks! James McBride (talk) 10:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Restoring Meaning: Expression-oriented programming languages

Cybercobra, Thank you for your attention to my contribution. Please discuss on talk page. Keith Cascio (talk) 00:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

People aged 85 and over

Hi, I just have a question about what you posted on the article concerning the deletion of the page People aged over 85. What do you mean by 'what about dead people'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwhite148 (talk • contribs)

David Eppstein

FYI: I responded to your comment at Talk:David Eppstein#Age? Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 05:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Message

Hello,

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triumphant_Institute_of_Management_Education - it is indeed up for speedy deletion as per http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ankurjain&redirect=no#Speedy_deletion_nomination_of_Triumphant_Institute_of_Management_Education

Ankur Jain (talk) 13:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Islamic Banking

Dear Cybercobra,

I have noticed that you removed my modification regarding the external link for Islamic Banking term in wikipedia and reported my contribution as vandalism.

I am surprised by this behavior.

I work in the Islamic finance industry and have joined been doing most of my searches on this new site and have found it site to provide a complete database of companies in the industry (in fact much more accurate and complete than the other links provided on the islamic banking term page)

I would strongly suggest to you to have a look at the database and compare it with the other sites you have in the external links before deciding which to keep and which to remove if you really care about the accuracy and integrety of the information provided by wikipedia.

Regards,

Zaineb —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.133.88 (talk) 21:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

please kindly reply

User_talk:Teltek#Re:_Wikifarms —Preceding undated comment added 12:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC).

Keep it up!

Just trolling by and spreading wiki-love to random editors who have made recent contributions to articles I have read today :) ⊂ Andyzweb ⊃ (Talk) 19:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

⊂ Andyzweb ⊃ (Talk) has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Sentence spacing

The article Sentence spacing is an FAC again. It's not getting a lot of attention, so if you're interested, feel free to weigh in! [8] --Airborne84 (talk) 22:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Merge_sort

Hi The pseudocode provided for merge_sort function has no exit way for sizes of m > 1

regards, vlad 139.149.1.231 (talk) 14:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Notability of small settlements

I saw that you contributed to the discussion at WT:N#Notability of small settlements, so you may be interested in a policy proposal I have made concerning this issue at the Village pump. Regards.

Regarding facebook

with due respect, plz make sure that you do not revert an edit that is correct. can you plz tell me what is the problem with my edit made to facebook article? i am also a wikipedian from a long time and know the ethics to use such a great place. regards --Adeelbutt88 ^talk 11:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

sorry and bundle of thanks i am adding a reference there regarding the event draw mohammad day.you can check it out there..thanks and regards --Adeelbutt88 ^talk 19:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding facebook

with due respect, plz make sure that you do not revert an edit that is correct. can you plz tell me what is the problem with my edit made to facebook article? i am also a wikipedian from a long time and know the ethics to use such a great place. regards --Adeelbutt88 ^talk 11:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

sorry and bundle of thanks i am adding a reference there regarding the event draw mohammad day.you can check it out there..thanks and regards --Adeelbutt88 ^talk 19:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Notability of small settlements

I saw that you contributed to the discussion at WT:N#Notability of small settlements, so you may be interested in a policy proposal I have made concerning this issue at the Village pump. Regards.

Editing others comments

Per the talk page guidelines, please don't edit other user's comments as you did on the Talk:Atheism article. As an aside, Bobrayner's comments were written as intended. It was a play on words: If theism has a 'pope', then atheism would have an 'apope'. Regardless, please don't modify other's comments, as it changes the ideas or style of their contributions without their consent. Thanks, and welcome to WP! Jess ^talk _cs 11:30 am, Today (UTC−7)

Not a dictionary

Please check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lady. Thanks.Kitfoxxe (talk) 02:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

revert on Lakh page

Hello,

Please note that the transliteration added was already below previously, with all other transliterations. Thanks. --92.8.202.26 (talk) 10:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Identifying reliable sources

If you feel the text here is inadequate, please develop your argument here, rather than putting inappropriate tags on pages your hard working wikipedia colleagues have created. ThanksHarrypotter (talk) 23:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Problem with your table

See here. I also see that your table is based on html, I'd suggest you use the simplified wiki table markup (see WP:TABLE). PS. Also, adding a table to an article is not cleanup - your edit summary should have been different :> --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

In point of fact, it's not my table; I was merely subst-ing {{Triclassauthority}} (which was already there) in preparation for a TfD as it's a template containing normal article content, which is against guidelines. So it was cleanup from that standpoint. I never looked at the template's source to see how the table was constructed. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that's fine, my bad - in fact, I think it may be my very, very old table (that somebody templated :D). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The three types of legitimate rule

I've deleted the target so you're good to go for the page move, but I saw there was also a merger discussion of some kind going on, so I won't do the move myself; I'll leave it for people who know a little more about what's going on. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thoughts on Atheism footer & sidebar templates?

Cybercobra: could you share some thoughts at Template talk:Atheism2. My aim is to help readers by bring more breadth and coherence to the sidebar and footer templates. Any help is appreciated, thanks. --Noleander (talk) 16:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The new "Irreligion" sidebar template is at Template:Atheism and Irreligion Sidebar, and it is similar to, but broader than, the original Atheism sidebar at Template:atheism2. Can you glance at them and let me know your thoughts? In particular: What do you think of consolidating them into a single sidebar template? --Noleander (talk) 17:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Identifying reliable sources

If you feel the text here is inadequate, please develop your argument here, rather than putting inappropriate tags on pages your hard working wikipedia colleagues have created. ThanksHarrypotter (talk) 23:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

This arose from your edit to Wikipedian in Residence. As the article was already referenced as regards the New York Times, it seemed that your comment was more relevant as regards the section on news organisations in that page, as it would appear that this more a matter of changing the wikipedia position on use of news sources, rather than any problems with a properly referenced article. That's all.Harrypotter (talk) 13:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (television)

{{rfctag}}

What should our policy be on articles that contain lists related to television? You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists (television). Taric25 (talk) 23:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC) (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

C++

"Almost" implies there is at least one implementation that doesn't warn of the situation. I know "most if not all" qualifies as a weazel word, but "almost" isn't a succinct replacement IMHO. Not being a native speaker, I'm a bit at a loss regarding a better formulation. -- DevSolar (talk) 07:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

JavaScript - Use of term "object-based"

Hi - Regarding your removal of the the term "object-based" for Javascript - "seldom used term, less informative", I did some work on this. To make a long story short, I think you have raised a really good point. Clearly "prototype-based, object-based" does not even make sense (the former is a sub-category of the latter.) However, now I wonder about "prototype-based, object-oriented" and the use of "object-based" in other parts of the article. In detail ...

(1) What to do about the use of the term "object-based" in the rest of the JavaScript article? Does it add anything there? Seems the term is used in place of "prototype-based". Should the term be removed, explained further, replaced by "prototype-based"?

(2) What is the sense of characterizing JavaScript as both prototype-based and object-oriented (in the lead paragraph where you made the original comment)?

(3) The JavaScript language is placed in the category of "object-based" languages. The term does not even appear in the list of programming paradigms used by Wikipedia. There seems to be some controversy about the term "object-based" in the corresponding articles in Wikepedia, so perhaps the best approach is to avoid it as much as possible until the controversy is resolved? I am new to Wikipedia so am just learning about the guidelines and standards around these sorts of issues.

(4) The question arises in other contexts, e.g. VBScript is characterized as "object-based" using the 2nd use of the term (as defined in the current Wikipedia article on object-based. Should that be left as is?

I am thinking of raising some of these points in the object-based talk page, but first wanted to invite your view of the matter, especially regarding the JavaScript article. Regards ... DonToto (talk) 05:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Hoxne Hoard

Hi, could you take a second look at the sources you deleted from this article? I think you may have left orphaned references. There is a note on the talk page. As the article is up for FA this will create review issues. Thanks Fæ (talk) 22:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I see you have made the same deletion, could you explain what you are doing on the talk page and fix the cross-references that no longer work due to all deletions of sources you have made? Thanks Fæ (talk) 23:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

ipa template on ipod touch

You removed the ipa template from ipod touch. I added the template because pronunciations kept being added by editors. I don't see anything in the pronunciation manual of style that calls for when to/not to use the ipa pronunciations, but I don't feel too strongly about including the pronunciation if it is blatantly obvious how this should be pronounced. However, if editors in the future decide it should have a pronunciation, the ipa template should be the preferred style. riffic (talk) 21:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

RFC

I noticed that you participated in a previous RFC at Wikipedia talk:Notability (events). I was wondering if you might share your opinion here: RFC: Should Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) be merged with Wikipedia:Notability (events) and Wikipedia:Notability (people)? Thanks! Location (talk) 19:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

sorry to trouble you...

File:Coat of Arms of the Italian Social Republic.svg needs redrawn as gold, the "owner" of the crude earlier version is being testy. Can you help? Thank you for your earlier help, and sorry. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 17:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Daniey

I just love your name Daniey (talk) 04:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Munch! (You are welcome, and thanks)

Jusdafax has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

Thank you very kindly... as someone who takes a lot of vandalism on my page, I frown on it at all times. Yours was a fairly nasty case. BTW I love cookies in real life and can't eat them at the moment (diet) so this is as close as I can get. Best wishes, Jusdafax 08:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The Utahraptor has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

I was going to make a new section, but then I saw this section and decided not to. You're very welcome. Do you have any idea why this vandal targeted you? The Utahraptor ^Talk/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 15:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Vote for consensus

Vote for consensus. There's a vote for consensus at Talk:Involvement of the People's Republic of China in Africa#Rename. I'm re-proposing a name: Economic relations between the People's Republic of China and Africa. I saw you preferred 'Economic relations between China and Africa'; there doesn't appear to be consensus for that version. Could you support this one? Ocaasi (talk) 04:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Photo on Human

Cybercobra, I am surprised at your insistence that this photo remain in the lead - if there ever was any consensus, it was years ago, not now. In the same way that this article was once a featured article and is no longer, editors are free to challenge aspects of it that are not acceptable. This photo is clearly condescending in being placed where it is, followed by the photo of a hairy ape-like creature they supposedly resemble. The current photo meets the criteria on the talk page and illustrates more of what being human means without the mockery. Best--Geewhiz (talk) 07:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Kosovo rulings,

cool edits on clearing out the log of EL's. Nice to merge it in.(Lihaas (talk) 10:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Your essay

Dear Sir: I believe you had requested feedback on your latest work, "Wikipedia is Amoral." I have, therefore, left a comment regarding your essay on its talk page. Warmest regards and do try to enjoy your evening. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 02:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Citizendium Porting logo

Re [9], see [10] :-) just beware though, the cached images don't always update straight away when you revert, so pages using it might not change immediately - I think that's right, anyway it can be confusing sometimes...  Begoon^talk 09:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Woopsy

I actually saw that on one page and thought it meant the plot (lead) of the wiki article above the contents box & not the plot summary of a fictional story, really sorry. Redundant lead paragraphs are unorganized, does the same tag work to suggest the lead be made more concise(I'll look)? I would think that would be important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.218.85.222 (talk) 08:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Microformats

Thank you for your sensible approach on the microformats RfC. You might like to join the microformats project. When the dust settles, I have some outstanding microformat-related BOTREQs which may interest you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a courtesy note to let you now that I have now posted, as promised, my view there, and to ask you revisit the debate. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Software archaeology‎

Thanks for the speedy keep. Always nice to get obvious cases sorted quickly. -- Radagast3 (talk) 05:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

ASCII

I started a discussion about your change in the printable characters chart on the ASCII page and would of course appreciate your input. Talk:ASCII#Old vs. new printable characters chart Neil Clancy 22:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

"that's not the way to fix it"

that was your justification when you undid an edit I made in the University of California page. As a python programmer, you must know that unlike the way numbers are used in a general sense, computers register 0 as the first number. so if you had the numbers: 1,2,3...11 then the computer would list the numbers as 1,11,2,3... because it's from smallest to largest and it seeing that 11 has a one, puts it ahead of two which is obviously incorrect. This works in the same fashion with three digit numbers: 1,2,3...100 would be read as 1,100,2,3... unless 0s are put in front. In the case of hundreth-place numbers, two zeros are required for two digit numbers (i.e. 001-009) and 1 zero for two-digit numbers (i.e. 010-099) you can see for yourself on the page by looking at the US news section, the ARW section, and the NSF section just for a few examples. make sure to click the organizing icons 3 times to see where the error lies. you can look at my previous revision (which i'm going to put back) to see that it works flawlessly, and that this issue is no longer there. I was not logged in previously, but now i am and you can leave your complaints with me in my discussion page if you'd like to discuss this issue further. Xenfreak (talk) 20:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Online compilers external links

Hi,

You have removed some external links I have added, e.g.: [11], [12].

Online compilers are nowadays growing and becoming more and more important for users in several contexts (code snippets publishing, testing, discussions, simple unit tests and more) - please have a look for example at: [13], [14] to see that they have been mentioned and are widely used (you will be able to find much more using you favourite search engine).

Why do you remove them, what is you point of view here? kuszi (talk) 10:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC).

M.I.A.

As an editor who has recently edited M.I.A. (artist), I am asking you to comment on the "Politics" thread at Talk:M.I.A. (artist). Input in the issue from more users would be nice. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 18:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:AMORAL

Yes this sums up my opinion very well. Some psychologists have tried to suppress the intersecting pentagons as well as seen here. Wikipedia has too great a tolerances for those who WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT. The consensus was clear at the last RfC. We at Wikipedia need to protect the public domain / creative commons from those who would attempt to privatize / claim it. Reading the comments in the NYTs we see that most of the world supports us in our position.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Online compilers external links

Hi,

You have removed some external links I have added, e.g.: [15], [16].

Online compilers are nowadays growing and becoming more and more important for users in several contexts (code snippets publishing, testing, discussions, simple unit tests and more) - please have a look for example at: [17], [18] to see that they have been mentioned and are widely used (you will be able to find much more using you favourite search engine).

Why do you remove them, what is you point of view here? kuszi (talk) 10:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC).

I understand your suspicies here, but you are wrong. (1) "there are multiple sites like it" - no, for most of languages there is only one, two or even zero (for example please show me an online compiler for Nimrod except ideone, or for D except codepad and ideone). And further "choosing between them is fairly arbitrary" - I do not think so, we have some data about sites popularity e.g.: [19], google page rank, alexa stats and more.

"(2) it's not specific to any one language" - well, it is - due to the lack of available tools. For example for C or Java we have more options.

I think we should not ignore the online compilers world, (please consult nice recent article about mobile apps. Best, kuszi (talk) 21:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC).

Smile

Thanks for fixing up all my favourite disambig pages, and inducing a broad smile ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 05:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Screencast

You might be interested in the latest post at the WP:CBB. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 02:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

New encyclopedism

RE: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 August 23

What about having something like v: User:KYPark/Encyclopaedism/Timeline here? It is ready to be imported. You are welcome to talk at Talk:New encyclopedism#Timeline. Thanks. -- KYPark (talk) 23:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

goodsoft.org.ua

hi, Cybercobra Will you delete my link from Wikipedia if i posted additionaly implementations of the dynamic array ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.195.156.232 (talk) 14:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Human

Would you please contribute to the discussion? -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 22:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

What "artificial" "split" are you referring to? Please use the talk pages. That's what they are for. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 23:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

What are you doing? Why aren't you even using the talk page? -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 23:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Er, I have used the talkpage (perhaps your message is from before that), and I've been constructively editing the page. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Well the point being to discuss matters on the talk page first, as I did, and then get into working things out on the article. I'm interested to see your idea for a merge ("attempt le grande merge of previous lede & Steve's lede"), and to discussing it on the talk. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 23:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

See Talk:Human#Update -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 01:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

citing the lead

it's because if it's not well-cited in the article below, it doesn't belong in the lead, reasoning that the lead is just a summary of the body, where each particular point will be cited. It's not a rule, but a philosophy of leads, that they exist to summarize the details below, so are not the place to be detailing each fact, so that there is no need to cite anything in the lead, it would be redundant, we'd be citing once in the lead and once in the body, that's twice, that's unnecesary. Chrisrus (talk) 18:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Mindless Removals of the valid contributions of others

I too agree with others that Cybercobra is an enemy of the goals of Wiki. Why do you go around removing the valid additional information supplied by others. In some areas there is NO peer-reviewed articles to support either position, but you (acting as ultimate arbiter) remove the valid additional information supplied by others.... and refuse to give any reasons for your removal of such information.

I wonder if the nominative-determinism of you choice of name (venomous snake) implies you understand your own psychological deficiencies. Go about adding to the wealth of world knowledge, not taking pleasure in subtracting from it. Graeme Harrison (prof@post.harvard.edu) Prof at-symbol post.harvard.edu (talk) 01:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Human

Cyber, please comment on talk as to why the revert. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 05:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

PS: Psychology is best categorized under sociology, being one of the social sciences. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 05:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Psychology falls under Sociology, but the subheadings in question (possibly excepting sex) all fall more directly under Psychology rather than Sociology (IMO), so making that correction to your hierarchy, we obtain:

• Sociology
  • Psychology
    • Consciousness and thought
    • Motivation and emotion
    • Sexuality and love [Placement debateable]
  • No other sections at this level

Which, due to involving a section with only 1 subsection, makes no sense. Whether the "Culture" section should be retitled to "Sociology" (or similar), is a separate issue but does make sense to me. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's talk on the article talk page. I agree with your points and note that perhaps half of the "culture" section belongs under sociology. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 00:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at an ANI thread, regarding an issue with which you may have been involved, here. Thank you ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 18:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Don't-give-a-fuckism (3rd nomination)

• I noticed your move point here :) But the discussions seem to be too cool to leave them go :):):) I'm having a ball seeing so many editors fight it out and letting themselves free with their encomiums :):) Thanks again for leaving the suggestion. Will do that once this blaze dies down. Take care Cobra. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 19:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Request

• As you are an editor who had participated here, could you please state/explain your level of "involvement" (if any)? I'd appreciate it if you could provide a response (or a copy of it) here. Thank you, Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

sex positions

Will move to singular title if you prefer; just need to move the other page history out of the way. — kwami (talk) 08:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Please Vote

Help us come to a proper consensus and vote Talk:Jessica_(entertainer)#Move.3F. Thank you. 200.21.15.109 (talk) 19:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Time discussion

A discussion has begun (on the talk page) concerning the lede in the article Time. I invite you to join here: Introduction, take 2 ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 00:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

I literally never knew whether new talk went on bottom or on top. It just never clicked in my head. I stand enlightened. Thank you SO much! :) --Ninjasaves (talk.stalk) 03:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Displaytitle

Hi. I've fixed the color css code in Edokter's 2nd example, so that the effect works now; feel free to revise your recent comment there, if your opinion is changed because of that. Thanks :) (reply here if needed) -- Quiddity (talk) 02:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Megatokyo

What secondary sources? I see, like, two in the whole article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Heads up about an RfC

Please note that there's a new discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure in which you may wish to comment. It is expected to close in about a week. You have received this message because you participated in a similar discussion (2009 AC2 RfC) last year.  Roger ^talk 05:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

whom am i talking to.

whom am i taliking with, cyber cobra doesnt explain who you are.are you admin,editor,the content provider of real life canadian tv show, please explain your self thank you, so i can structure my answer accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philip Stclair (talk • contribs) 12:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedian in Residence listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedian in Residence. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedian in Residence redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Bridgeplayer (talk) 03:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The Hoxne Hoard

Wow - I am truly speechless - 57.000 hits is an amazing number - congrats! What a great example of a working relationship between a museum and Wikipedia.Jane (talk) 10:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Template:Unicode navigation

Hi, we are not supposed to 2nd-revert without Talk. Since you took the first step in WP:BRD, you are supposed to start a Talk. I prefer talk here in one thread. -DePiep (talk) 19:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that giving the codepoints in the title as they were obscures the actual title ("Unicode") by pushing it far to the right. I also don't think the navbox is the best place to demonstrate codepoint decomposition; it's clutter which would belong much better in an article. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

"we are not supposed to 2nd-revert without Talk", I wrote above. Why did you? -DePiep (talk) 20:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I considered my edit summary justification to be sufficient "talk" for that purpose. You were/are, however, free to revert again with an edit summary responding to my edit summary comment. Also, the actual hard rule is WP:3RR. Anyway, if we could get back on topic, do you have a response to the concern I raised or do you have another line of argument in favor of the former version of the navbox? --Cybercobra (talk) 21:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You should have started talk. 3RR is a limit, not a right. Is what I am about. You still did not start a Talk, nor do you suggest you get my point. -DePiep (talk) 21:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I consider edit summaries to qualify as Talk in simple cases, which this seemed to be at the time. I affirm your right to revert if you feel the discussion has been insufficient. Since we're now discussing, if you still disagree with the substance of my edit, I would appreciate your comments on the merits of having the example in the navbox and a counterargument to my contention that the example is clutter that obscures the actual title. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

copy edit health effects of caffeine

Hi again,

could you please refer to the specific parts that need copy edit? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melissahoward (talk • contribs) 02:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

North Korea

I undid your revert of the LaRouxEMP's edit to North Korea. If you think that the material is at the wrong level, you should change fix that. The material you removed is vital and needs to be somewhere in the article. That is to say that the reader looking for that material, in this case me, would expect and hope to find it there. Sterrettc (talk) 19:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Merger of symbolic computation with computer algebra system

You may be interested in Talk:Symbolic computation#Merger with computer algebra system. Yaris678 (talk) 17:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Capsicum baccatum

For your information, I have cleared the history of Capsicum baccatum from anything which should prevent you from moving Ají pepper there. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikileaks hatnote

FYI: Talk:WikiLeaks#Hatnote. You'd previously removed it, so I wanted to make sure you saw this.--Chaser (talk) 00:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

delinking

My apologies —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.122.101.52 (talk) 07:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Preamble to the United States Constitution/text

While I understand why you believe that this should not be a template in the mainspace, there is support for it as can be seen at Talk:Preamble to the United States Constitution/text. I recommend taking this to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion instead so the keeping or deletion of this page can be discussed properly. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Preamble

The Preamble template was an effort at deflecting persistent vandalism. MrArticleOne (talk) 02:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Damn

We're not agreeing but we're not entirely disagreeing. Thanks for editing sincerely. Oh well, I tried. <( User:Couch on his Head and Smiling (talk) )> 06:12, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:web browsers

hi, what do you men with

"command-based browser"? neologism.

? this is a really common term in this section. There is software what is called command-based - you have to tipe in the you're command what browser should do and text-User interfaced browser which are based on similar technlics like GUI but like edit in dos you have any interfsace what is similare to a gui... mabdul 01:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE

The problem I have with this shortcut is that it is being abused as a deletion rational in AfDs on articles which describe the relationships between various television shows. TV Guide, the publication, is more than just a TV programming listing; it includes articles that deal with television in a broader sense. The broadcasting history of various notable shows, how they competed with each other, what spelled their ratings demises and cancellations, etc., are valid topics for description on this encyclopedia, if they have been written about in other publications (i.e., are notable and sourceable). When an article of this sort is put up for AfD, and the nominator gives as a rationale, "WP:NOTTVGUIDE", and a half-dozen others chime in with agreeable delete "votes" which create an apparent consensus that dooms the article, we have a serious problem. So I would like to propose that if this shortcut tag is not removed, it should at least be renamed, to something like "WP:NOTPROGRAMMINGLISTING". It may be a little unwieldy, but at least it is not prejudicial and so easily abusable. Thanks for hearing out my concern. Robert K S (talk) 04:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 21:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Caterpillar Club

You are in Edit history as an editor on this article. It has been multiply tagged for improvement as an alternative to being recommended for deletion. This is a request for editorial intervention to improve this article. Please help if possible.

Georgejdorner (talk) 17:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting vandalism on the Fisher House Foundation article. - Metamusing (talk) 19:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Declaration of Independence

Please see Talk:Declaration of independence. Talk page consensus was clearly to keep the article as a sort of list/disambiguation page, but to preserve the hatnote pointing to the US Declaration of Independence. My own rationale for the hatnote was that the US document fulfills the criteria of WP:TITLE much better than any other document. If you'd like to debate the issue, then I invite you to the talk page. —Bill Price (nyb) 05:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Template:Quantities of bytes (2)

I see you reverted my removal of the "binary prefix" column, as I half predicted. Can you explain what the use of this column is, and what extra information it provides outside of the binary prefix values column? Thanks. –CWenger (talk) 01:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

But isn't that redundant given that the same values are just a few columns over? People may use the units incorrectly but I think the table should only show what is really accurate. In any case I think the "Binary usage" cell should have a rowspan of 1 instead of 2, so it is under the SI decimal prefixes header. –CWenger (talk) 21:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Template:Quantities of Bytes

I see that you undid my revision on Quantities of Bytes [20]. I can see that the citation tag looks untidy but I'm not sure how else to flag the problem. I have left notes on affected article pages (eg zettabyte and yottabyte), but the template seems to me a better place to have the discussion. (ps: I prefer if you answer here and not on my talk page) Dondervogel 2 (talk) 16:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Well done!

You were the last person to make an edit in 2010! jc iindyysgvxc (my contributions) 00:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Vectorizing NYCEDC logo

Your request is fulfilled. Please check and make sure the copyright information is acceptable to Wikipedia, and mark entry as 'resolved' if the request is indeed met. Jon C (talk) 07:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Curl

I added a part where it says that it is often mistaken as cURL. Why did you remove it? It was not meant as a joke or something like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.54.137.102 (talk) 11:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Mac OS X Lion season

While I understand that the seasons are opposite depending on the hemisphere (and being intimately familiar with this fact), I think including the season is redundant information. If users want to know what summer means, we can wikilink the term summer; as it is, every external source that mentions the release, including Apple's statement, simply says Summer 2011. At risk of being facetious, there isn't any reference that states it WON'T be released in Southern Hemisphere summer 2011; it is instead implied that is what is meant. Per WP:SEASON, neutral terms are preferred (as in a month/quarter), but in this case per sources all we can assume is that either the release is completely ambiguous as to which summer it refers, or it is obviously implied (which is the trend any external source seems to take). On that note, a quick search of other articles seems to follow this pattern. Any followup thoughts? ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 16:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I re-opened an AfD

I re-opened Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alma-0. I arrived too late to comment on them, and it seems that the deletion nomination was sound enough. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

New Zealand

HI Cybercobra, I can't find anywhere in WP:LAYOUT that says the notes and references should be under separate headers. It does suggest Notes and/or References as a heading though. I prefer the other layout and it was based off a featured article (Daniel Lambert) so I have reverted to the previous version. Am happy to discus if you disagree or alter it if you can point me to the relevant policy. Cheers AIRcorn (talk) 13:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Bontq

Hello, May I ask what's wrong with the sources? I actually gave 3 links to different articles from respected websites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomassheff (talk • contribs) 09:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: Re: Bontq

Hello, Thank you very much for making it clear for me. I've added all the sources I could find, can you please approve the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomassheff (talk • contribs) 12:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikifarms list

A while ago you trimmed the Wikifarms list rather drastically (I think that was one of yours). Whether the article needed so many listed is debateable, but I am not reopening that one.

Were there criteria you used to determine which wikifarms were unworthy of inclusion? I am not an owner / manager / anything of any wikifarm but the original long list was useful. One of the deleted ones was wiki-site.com which seems popular still (not least with wikispammers).

Perhaps of more interest is which farms are technically up to the job, and if one were to keep on the list just those which have the resources to produce publicly accessible wikis then that is doing a public service. Do you know of any technical rating for thiese things? I have a couple of sites I occasionally maintain in different places and I do have difficulty accessing them, but I suspect that has more to do with my connection!

(Ah - if you do wish to reply on my Talk page, the one I read is on Commons. I just haven't worked out how to divert my WP Talk page there. Thanks)

Hogweard (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

No, that would be Snow Leopard, but it was arguably still right to remove it

In this edit, you removed a "10.6.7" version with a Darwin version of 10.7. That would be the next Software Update of Snow Leopard, not Lion - the Darwin major version number increases by 1 for every major OS X release, so OS X 10.6.x has a Darwin major version number of 10 and OS X 10.7.x would have a Darwin major version number of 11; the minor version number increases with Software Updates, so OS X 10.6.6 has a Darwin version number of 10.6.

However, it's not clear that random seed builds should show up in the version list, so it might've been the right thing to do to remove it anyway. Guy Harris (talk) 02:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Peter Barlow (mathematician)

I've reverted your dab link edit, since you had replaced the link to Peter Barlow (which exists) by Peter Barlow (disambiguation) (which doesn't). -- Radagast3 (talk) 12:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:FURTHER

If resorting to quoting policy instead of giving well-reasoned arguments, please interpret the policy correctly:

An optional bulleted list, usually alphabetized, of a reasonable number of editor-recommended publications that would help interested readers learn more about the article subject. Editors may include brief annotations. Publications listed in Further reading are cited in the same citation style used by the rest of the article. The Further reading section should normally not duplicate the content of the External links section or references in the article. This section is not intended as a repository for WP:General references used to create the article content.

Emphasis mine. —Ruud 00:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

You're being childish now. Try giving a well thought through argument next time, it makes discussion more interesting. I have not counted, so I might be at 3RR, so I guess you've won now. Good night. —Ruud 00:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

My point was that I don't think you really cared about the citation style used (articles regularly move from no citation, to inline citations, to having an elaborate structure of references, further reading material, external links, citations and footnotes, as they grow from a stub to a featured article), but looking for a policy based argument to "win" instead thinking about what was actually a good approach for this article. —Ruud 17:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Well Done!

A very manly man, just like you!

You have been awarded the Manliness Award for helping to construct a great encyclopedia.

Keep up the great work!

A Very Manly Man (talk) 07:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Hacker

Hi Cybercobra,

Thank you for contacting me about this. I checked through the previous discussions before moving the page and determined that, although it was admitted that the article was about a word rather than a unified concept, no one had acknowledged this to be a primary target issue. What is it that you disagree with in the move of Hacker to Hacker (term)?

Neelix (talk) 22:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Service award level

There has been a major revision of the the Service Awards: the edit requirements for the higher levels have been greatly reduced, to make them reasonably attainable.

Because of this, your Service Award level has been changed, and you are now eligible for a higher level. I have taken the liberty of updating your award on your user page.

Herostratus (talk) 07:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Statistics on contributors

Hello. I saw you cropped the file: WMFstratplanSurvey1.png, don't you think it should be better to move the chart on the left and crop again? Please answer me here or accept to wait until I come back on en.wp. ;) Nemoi is French, and he begs your pardon for all the stange things he certainly has said here at 16:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC).

Thanks for the proofread!

WikiThanks

Thanks for proofreading my essay! I can't believe I missed that fragment.

Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Fukushima

You may recall that "event tree" was construed as an "apparent neologism" in Timeline of the Fukushima I nuclear accidents and Fukushima nuclear accident log, March 2011. I have restored this term in both articles. Each use is linked to an IAEA overview in which "event tree" is a parsing device for analysis of an accident sequence. Please see page 3 of the pdf file here.

Can you suggest how this might have handled this differently? Perhaps you may want to review a new article created in response to the implied questions -- see Event tree. --Tenmei (talk) 21:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

PRC/China

Not relevant once Rjanag creates a page notice for Talk:PRC and Talk:China. After some point, I do not at all tolerate (bluntly) ignorants, imperialists, or downright idiots coming in not to talk about specific elements of the article's contents, but use the China re-direct issue as a conceited attempt to appear germane to the article. And please answer here. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 20:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Preface: I agree messing with China is unwise and that there is much politics involved. Sidenote: There does not appear to be any such notice on Talk:China.

Per WP:CCC and Wikipedia:Process is important, it is inappropriate to delete an entire discussion like this when it was started in apparent good-faith and was relevant (albeit tangential) to the article. And notwithstanding the recent activity, it was an old, stale, resolved discussion. If you had archived it instead (perhaps you did? if so, your edit summary didn't make that clear), or if you had merely removed the recent IP comment, I would not have had any objection.

Also, I'll just say I think it's usually better not to respond to such obviously trolling comments in the first place. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Temp

Can you explain this edit please? Pass a Method talk 07:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

American Academy of Financial Management

Need help from editor who understands finance or governmental sector. 2 Editors continue to remove the primary governmental references from this article American Academy of Financial Management

Can you help somehow to make sure that the government links and regulatory references and citations remain in the article to improve the AAFM Article. Nobody wants to whitewash the article, but rather include government links, the top US Business accreditation agencies such as AACSB and ACBSP, and FINRA and US Government referneces to AAFM. Most of the information that is included in todays article was approved by the two editors last year. Not sure why these editors now think the references and facts should be deleted at this time? Please help get this article right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.17.102.39 (talk) 17:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Unilateral declaration of independence

Hi. I see I didn't think through my change enough on Declaration of Independence. But (especially on old computer screens) the hatnotes take up much space and distract from the article itself (in my personal experience I ignore 1 hatnote, but with more, I start reading them). So I was looking for a way to "clean up" the article heading. Would you mind me placing the UDI behind the other hatnote (maybe not totally correct, but less distracting) (I thought making a disambiguation page would be to drastic) Thanks. Joost 99 (talk) 10:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

This page is about the type of document. For the United States declaration, see United States Declaration of Independence. For the short film, see Declaration of Independence (film). For the specific Rhodesian document, see Unilateral Declaration of Independence.

Ok. Seeing the talk, this might later on be the only hatnote left ;-). Joost 99 (talk) 10:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Programming paradigms

Why do you not consider "Extraction and Reporting Language" and "Line Oriented Language" to be forms of programming paradigms? IMHO - They are.

Markhobley (talk) 21:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC) --Cybercobra (talk) 15:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Hung's adjustment

Hung's adjustment is initiated by the following paper, you may refer to http://www.enterupload.com/elbhi2yhmrkb/technical_paper.pdf.html It is a well paper issued by the University of Hong Kong, with the approval of Dr. W.K. Tsui (Professor of the department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering) Thank you. The scholar Hung Pui Ki is my PhD supervisor, he said that he would like to authorise the copy right of his paper to wikipedia, I was wondering to what agreement he needs to sign! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpkex0102 (talk • contribs) 15:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I think so!! But I have no idea to which journal my supervisor has his paper published. I'm sure it has been published! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpkex0102 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes indeed, the name "Hung's Adjustment" is not written on the paper. I need some time to search where this name is used. coz I'm sure the other scholars' quote this work with the name "Hung's adjustment" thx! Cpkex0102 (talk) 16:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cybercobra for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Links to dab pages

Per your comment that you hope readers don't add new links to Run time (computing), they quite possibly will. However there are many users and at least one bot that monitor and/or repair links to disambiguation pages. Thryduulf (talk) 21:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Democratic Party position in infobox

I really wish you hadn't done that: I feel that it just panders to the ever-annoying American exceptionalism which afflicts any project in the English language, and to the pretense on the American Right that all Democrats post 1964 or so are closet social democrats/socialists/communists/Stalinists (the same thing, donchaknow). I will not revert you; but would ask that you re-consider this action. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

List of California public officials charged with crimes‎

Hello, and thanks for taking an interest in the above article. I am wondering where you got the exact text you used to replace the "Library card required" format that I was using. I did not make up the format; I found it several months ago after doing a search and asking at an appropriate help site. Right now, though, I can't seem to re-locate the place where I found it. I remember chatting with one or two people at that location. Anyway, I am not wedded to any particular format, although I think my text looks better and, if you have no objection, I wouldn't mind reverting it to the way it was. Sincerely, your friend,GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Online Ambassadors

I saw you have been really active lately and I clicked on over to your user page and was pretty impressed. Would you be interested in helping with the WP:Online_Ambassadors program? It's really a great opportunity to help university students become Wikipedia contributers. I hope you apply to become an ambassador, Sadads (talk) 00:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

"The" Republic of South Sudan

Please see the discussion on the talk page. We're currently having a debate about this, and the PDF does explicitly say this per my edit summary. CycloneGU (talk) 20:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

.sd

Why do you keep changing the TLD of South Sudan from .sd to none??? SS currently uses .sd because it has no tld assigned to it. They have propsed .ss, but it is not active yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linux731 (talk • contribs) 03:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Go Here Please

Hello, Cybercobra. You have new messages at Linux731's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

He thought I reverted him, not you. I copied the discussion to his talk page and explained what happened, but don't want to step on your toes. Please go there and explain to him why you reverted him. CycloneGU (talk) 03:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Alprazolam

I can not see where the FDA text limits label to short term use and 6-8 weeks in the approval. It says after longer than 8 weeks the physician shall "periodically reassess" the usefulness of the treatment. In the other addition the rising concern about tranquilizer abuse includes also non-benzodiazepines and talks about tranquilizers in general. It is rather tangential to alprazolam. 70.137.156.196 (talk) 23:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Linked List

See the talk page for 'linked list'. TechTony (talk) 10:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Letter-NumberCombination

Template:Letter-NumberCombination has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.

Incoterms page edits

Hello Cybercobra,

I noticed that you reverted my recent edits of Incoterms page. I removed the summary of terms. First of all I was the one who created this block, you can check in the the history of the page. This section was not referenced to the Incoterms publication. In fact that publication doesn't contain any charts like this. This section was referenced to my own interpretation of the official publication which is available here http://www.winglobal.ca/incoterms_2010. You will see that charts are identical right away.

Now yesterday 2 users piointed out that I can't publish anything based on my Original research. They deleted the link to my website which was the source but they didn't delete the summary. Based on what I read in the Original Research policy I think it is unacceptable to keep this material on the wikipedia. I don't want my name to be assosiated with violation of wikipedia rules and confusing readers.

Please, delete this information.

See also the discussion with one of users http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MrOllie#Incoterms. By the way this is official wall chart, it has nothing to do with my interpretation http://www.iccbooks.com/Product/ProductInfo.aspx?id=656. If you have any questions, please ask. I will monitor the page and make sure that the section is deleted if I didn't hear back from you.

Thank you. IgorIgorch (talk) 13:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Bureaucrat RfC - crat percentage citation

I wasn't certain if you really wanted a ref or not, but I figured it couldn't hurt so I added a couple. I also figured it would be good to have some link to past discussions for how we got where we are. I just wanted to let you know about it, so a reply is not necessary, but if you do, please reply here. Thanks. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 07:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

NoSQL

Your "weak keep" is the only thing keeping the Strozzi NoSQL (RDBMS) article alive, and has been +1'd by another user in the deletion debate. As it was a "Strictly On-Line" tutorial (e.g. a blog post rather than a printed article/opinion) I'm unconvinced that it counts as a reliable source. -- samj _in^out 13:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the editnotice ideas btw. -- samj _in^out 13:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Copyright violations

Thanks for the concern and intimation about the copyright violations. I'm certainly aware of it and giving strict instructions to the students also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhijit13 (talk • contribs) 10:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

WP Computer Science in the Signpost

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Computer Science for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 02:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Human conservation status

You can't really believe it's necessary to have that there can you? I mean we're talking about our species. It's kinda redundant when you think about it. CRRaysHead90 | ^{Another way...} 09:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't be a smart ass, and I mean that in the kindest, inside joke type way, not as a personal attack or incivility. The thing is though the article isn't about just any other species, it's about our species and I don't see the need to list the assessment of our species when we can just step out side or go to the local mall to see the status of our species. If that assessment ever became necessary to use then I doubt anyone would be on the internet let alone on Wikipedia. And IMO it's insulting the way that organization talks about us. Regardless of my personal feeling, I just don't think it's necessary. I know you're gonna disagree so maybe we should let the community decide if it's necessary. Should you put it on the talk page or should I? CRRaysHead90 | ^{Another way...} 09:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

There ya go. Have a great day! CRRaysHead90 | ^{Another way...} 10:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

China

The revert by Oda Mari was identified as vandalism because she has no interest in the China article and she only did that as a provocation. She is one of the involved parties in the ongoing Arbitration on Senkaku Islands case as I had evidence against her. STSC (talk) 11:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

ANI-notice at WP:ANI#Abuse of Twinkle by User: STSC

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

regarding changes to our page

hello...i just want to ask you that what was wrong in our information that you edited it.changing format was not necessary.so you should have atleast asked us to do formatting or could have informed before changing.uma (talk) 06:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

i know that.but whatever you had to do with our information, you could have asked us even to do so.actually we are under project of college so we are supposed to do some editings on that page.and we do not have a lot scope to make changes there.so please before making change you can atleast inform us.uma (talk) 07:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

and the changes in table were not actually necessary.uma (talk) 07:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

thank you so much.and i hope we can create better page of whatever is existing.and of course your suggestions will be implemented very correctly and still if you think they are not proper you can go ahead and make changes according to you.Thank you.uma (talk) 07:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

And even if you have any idea of what else can be added to the page you can suggest us anytime.uma (talk) 07:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

List of important publications in networks and security

I have to wonder how even this was relevant at the old title. The article is like a trashbin that people just posted papers that if related are only tangentially so.Curb Chain (talk) 08:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Template:Sar

Pray tell, why do you find the italics on the internal links generated by Template:Sar improper? Your change affects other templates. Yours aye,  Buaidh  01:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

One's complement histmerge

I've done the histmerge. Thanks for flagging up the histmerge request. Deryck C. 16:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Pornography

Hi Cybercobra,
Good idea to put the Pornography page sections in order per MOS, but, you left the page with a cite error! This appears to be caused by use of the <ref></ref> tags in the "Further reading" section. If you remove these tags from all the URLs in that section it should be OK. Unfortunately the age is semi-protected, or I would do it. :( Regards, 220.101.30 talk^\edits (aka 220.101) 08:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Upload image of The C programming Language

Hello, I found a picture on the cover of the book C, which I happened to vector format, I also corrected the mistake of appearing a Stray black box in the picture. But do not know how to properly upload Wikicommons, so I leave here the link to another page where I uploaded. I ask your help to properly upload the image. Thank you very much.

Link: http://ompldr.org/vYmo4Ng/c.svg

Sorry for my bad English, translated by Google Translator.

Hola, he encontrado una imagen de la portada de el libro C, la cual he pasado a formato vectorial, he corregido además el error de aparecer un cuadrito en la imagen. Pero no sé como subirla de forma adecuada a Wikicommons, así que aquí dejo el vínculo a otra página donde la he subido. Y te pido ayuda para que subas de forma correcta la imagen. Muchas Gracias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alguienconganasdeayudar (talk • contribs) 01:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks and quiries (part a)

On U.S. Constitution, oh, first of all, thanks.

(1) Why are my quotes not coming out curly? Mostly I compose in Word (Apple edition) and copy-paste.

(2) In captions, can I use the first name abbreviations that the men used in their signatures?

I only resorted to them to try to fit the captions into one line. To attribute George Washington and Benjamin Franklin as “American” instead of their states, VA and PA, I used “Geo:” and “Benj:”. Are those headline/type-setting fudges allowable in MoS for captions? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

.ss

He cycbercobra. I decided to revert your return of the SS associations on .ss. Although I realize in principle I should not re-revert if contended, I did it because there were no objections on the talkpage (which had been silent since 15 nov). Feel free to discuss there (maybe an RFC is in order?) L.tak (talk) 07:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Alan Turing

Hi, thanks for reverting me. I thought the BBC reference was a previous story about the last petition, my mistake. --Fæ (talk) 18:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Cobra (recent move)

Hi, can you fix the move here and here? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricvelozo (talk • contribs) 17:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I know. I asked you because you edited the article and have voted in elimination of the other article, and I didn't know where to ask for help from administrators. Sorry if I went an opportunist. :) --Ricvelozo (talk) 01:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Human article

Hi. Will you take a look at the Talk:Human#Possibly section about an objection I have concerning a recent edit? 193.169.145.43 (talk) 13:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Question

hi thanks for the help on the page. orthostatic hypertension I had some time today to start looking throu the things brought to attention and got a question. (I'll probably end up with a lot of questions, hope you dont mind) "journal|date=September 2000|journal=Lyndonville News|volume=2|issue=5" was a reference which you put a vague tag next So Im trying to work out why and what needs changing. Was it the way the journal was quoted? or that reference isnt good? or something else to do with the actual sentence of the text before that or after that? Please explain so I know what the issue is and what u think should be changed. thanks :) --Taniaaust1 (talk) 12:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

oh sorry. I just saw it wasnt you which put that tag onto an area but the bot. So now I have to figure out what exactly the bot was refering to. Would you mind taking a look and seeing what you think. (its where it says vague between two different references). Im wondering IF it is refering to the text and not the references (im so confused what it is refering to) if it is the following part of the text "and is thus subject to change" I guess that part of the text is vague? I could leave it out if so?

anyway. what do you think if you dont mind me asking. Do you think that what the bot is refering to or not? --Taniaaust1 (talk) 12:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Please check this diff.

this edit was made by a mostly-vandalism account. Can you check it? Thanks --Slashme (talk) 08:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Cup-and-ball toy.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Cup-and-ball toy.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 11:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Three more quiries (part b)

As to, the “inappropriate caption” that said, “opening phrase, inspires friends, provokes opponents” changed to “’We the people’ as it appears in an original copy of the Constitution”.

(a) >> Did that quote-in-quote above come out right? >> Is it still good style?

(b) If I am writing a quote, it makes sense to use the new convention putting the last punctuation inside the quote. That shows I did not impose my own question mark to change the meaning.

But if I end a sentence with a term or phrase in quotes, >> Do we now nest the period inside the quotation mark? Once upon a time and long ago, it was, The debate was not “for real”.

I think I had the ratification debate in mind, with Patrick Henry’s denunciation ringing in my ears. A little “transference” I suppose. If the section text relates to the phrase’s controversy the edited caption might be appropriate. But I agree, WP:CAP nixes the previous caption. As the section now stands, it was an “inappropriate caption”. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Consolidate/simplify

Hi Cybercobra, referring to this edit: I see your point, since the two urls ([21] and [22]) seem to have to same effect when clicked, but actually they don't, as you can see by directly comparing. It looks like they (that is, the GoogleBooks team) made some changes since a few weeks: the parameter &pg=PA401, which used to take us directly to page 401, enabling the reader to directly verify, no longer does that. Until now, whenever I added a source that directly presented the relevant page, I used this form, but It looks like I'm going to have to adapt to a new environment — unless it's a temporary bug or so. I'll keep an eye on things. Anyway, as it is now, your edit was 100% on the mark. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 22:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks

Many thanks for putting my request for a "Redirect for Discussion" in the correct format. I actually have Wikipedia: Twinkle in my preferences, but I have not used it yet. Again, thank you for your help, ACEOREVIVED (talk) 11:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Your deletion of the reference is invalid (vis a vis Omnientheism)

I don't want to get into a back and forth with you, so I will quote the rules of wikipedia on the subject:

Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources.

Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

• the material is not unduly self-serving;
• the material does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities);
• the material does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
• there is no reasonable doubt as to the authenticity and source of the material;
• the article is not based primarily on such sources.

These requirements also apply to pages from social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook.

In the context of the reference, the rules say the blog entry is acceptable. The blog is written by the person who coined the term... thus clearly an expert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JahSun (talk • contribs) 11:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Seriously?

You put the article up for deletion? Since the admins have elected to keep it, I would appreciate it if you stepped down from policing the article now. You seem to be an expert programmer, but I don't see how you can possibly consider yourself an expert on Omnientheism. Having an interest in philosophy does not make you an arbiter of novel branches of theistic thought. JahSun (talk) 11:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Javascript Logo

Greetings! Recently you removed a logo for the JavaScript page based on it not being an official logo. Although this is entirely accurate, it seems appropriate to discuss whether a non-official logo can be placed on the page, since it is appropriate under WP licensing terms, and there does not appear to be consensus for excluding a logo from this specific page simply because the language does not have an "official" logo. Moreover, it is likely that an "official" logo will not be adopted by any of the relevant standardization bodies.

Thanks for your participation and feedback. dr.ef.tymac (talk) 19:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Harassment

Replies made inline. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The fact that you have singled me out and are spearheading attacks on every single page I have been involved with, directly violates Wikipedia:Harassment rules. It matters not whether you are right or wrong in your assessments, the rules are clear that you should avoid editing more than one or two pages or edits from the same author.

You happen to be recently involved with a grand total of 3 articles, all of which violate conflict-of-interest guidelines, which makes it nearly inevitable that anyone who consults your editing history on the basis of observing that you created a potentially-self-promoting article, and attempts to rectify the situation, would be "harassing" you by such a definition. I think many would find it unreasonable to absolutely arbitrarily require the actions I've taken to done by separate editors.

And, while you may have been justified in targeting the Omnientheism article, you have severely overreached in your attacks on a global, internationally known charitable organization active in 70 countries worldwide... one which has helped over a million people and been featured on TV, newsprint etc., won awards, received major grants and more.

The fact that your organization is a charity does not exempt it from notability requirements like every other article. If your organization is as notable as you claim, it ought to be very easy to prove. Just find 2 reliable independent sources that cover your organization in decent depth. The fact that you repeat your notability claims without any sourced evidence speaks to your lack of familiarity with Wikipedia's rules. This is entirely forgivable and somewhat expected for newbies (although you've apparently been editing to some degree since 2006), but by no means does it mean your articles get a free pass. I will also point out that tagging with {{notability}} and nominating an article for deletion are distinct processes with different levels of seriousness.

The fact remains that you have a plethora of articles you could busy yourself with, and it is the policy of Wikipedia that you not spend an inordinate amount of time focused on the contributions of a single other user.

In fact, I do busy myself with many other articles. I'm among the top 425 contributors to English Wikipedia. Your articles are but 3 of many to me. Relative to my other contributions, and excluding the time writing this response to you, the time I've spent on your 3 articles is hardly "inordinate".

You seem to have have taken a specific dislike for me, and the fact that 2/3rds of your current to-do list involves me personally makes it clear that you need to back off and find something better to do with your time.

Note that multiple sections of this talkpage have todo-list items. I have consolidated them now. Hopefully this now puts the number of items into greater perspective. I will freely admit that I do not take kindly to Wikipedia being used for self-promotion though.

I will give you 24hrs to retract your attacks on the Water Charity & JahSun pages and offer me an apology. If you choose to be obstinate and continue in your persecution of me, I will be forced to bring this matter to the administrative assistance team. Read the rules for harassment, and recognize that this is what you are doing. Whether or not you are correct in your cries of notability is not the question. If you are right, other wikipedians will pick up on it, and the situation will be rectified on its own. You, however, have made this too personal.

I have made no threats against you, I have not insulted you, your organization, or your ideas. I have not been distruptive. I've not even violated WP:3RR. I merely reported some facts regarding the compliance of some articles with project rules, facts which are apparent to any experienced Wikipedian with knowledge of the project's rules (as is corroborated by the current deletion vote tallies). I am confident in the propriety of my actions.

Wikihounding: Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work.

I hope you see fit to step back and be reasonable. I don't want to have an issue with you, and hope we can resolve this and go on peaceably. You seem to have many interests. I ask that you shift your attention back to them and forget about me. JahSun (talk) 12:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I encourage you to familiarize yourself (if you haven't already) with Wikipedia's core rules (particularly WP:RS & WP:V) and to locate some reliable sources for the articles in question. It will be infinitely more productive for all concerned than arguing personalities. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Cybercobra... give it a rest. You didn't just consolidate your TODO list, you completely removed all evidence of your focus on me and my organization. Obviously, it appeared inappropriate to you, or you would have left it. The fact is, that if my articles needed fixing, amending or deleting, other competent editors are capable of doing so. You might think that your BOLD stance and following me around makes you a good editor, I submit that it is hounding.

I have edited Wikipedia in the past, but I am a busy man. Being CEO of a company and president of another doesn't leave a lot of time for going tit-for-tat with people like you. I can only assume that you don't have a lot of pressing issues. At any rate, I recommend you recuse yourself from my articles and issues and let other people deal with them if they see fit. As it stands, you have made editing here unpleasant for me and appear to be going out of your way to undermine me and my organization. (both of which are criteria for wikihounding)

I can't imagine why you would have such animosity for a person who spends the majority of his time helping people for no remuneration. The articles in question are not self-promotion... we just don't hire people to do this kind of thing like some other charity organisations. It seems only logical to me that if our contemporaries in hydrophilanthropy and their CEO's warrant articles, than our organization does as well. If there are things that could be improved I am sure some people other than yourself are capable of helping out in that regard.

You say it only takes 2 independent reliable sources? Well, there are dozens of them, and they are not hard to find, so if you were truly being impartial of your research into Water Charity and myself, you would have found more than enough yourself. I am guessing the Washington Post, the LA Times, and other news agencies from London to Hong Kong, the AP, Reuters and more are reliable enough. If helping a million people doesn't make us notable, what does? You do realize that water related illness kills more people than all forms of violence put together... including war. And yet, there are Wiki pages for military officers who have only appeared in the media a couple of times that you don't seem to see fit to subject to your scrutiny.

I really don't have the time or energy to do this with you though. If you withdraw your aggressive editing of my posts and go on about your business, I guarantee you that someone else will see what you seem to have seen and take up the torch... if you were right. I would be happy to learn more about how to do all of this correctly and make my edits and articles better. But at this point it would be best if it wasn't from you or User:Ism schism (whose call for speedy deletion of my article was rejected, who you seem perhaps inordinately close to, and who also seems to feel the need to follow me around scant minutes after or before you). These lessons will have to wait anyway, as I have real work to do.

Should you continue to make me a priority the way you have, I will take this to the appropriate venue for harassment complaints and let them decide. Erasing me from your TODO list will not cover up what was posted here. If you retract your attacks, we can erase this entire back and forth and go on about our respective businesses. If this is not personal or harassment, what do you care anyway? JahSun (talk) 21:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JahSun (talk • contribs)

Site Specific Browser

I was trying to submit a link to SiteSpecificBrowser.com on the Site-specific_browser wiki page but it was removed as spam or shady. How can I resolve this? You can email mail@regedanzter.com Thanks. Laddy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.143.3.30 (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed changes to web browsers template

Please comment on my proposal about changes to {{web browsers}}. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Arabesque

If you want Arabesque to be a disambiguation page, you should start a requested move for Arabesque (disambiguation). I'm not sure whether there's a primary topic or not, and I don't have time to look into it right now. TimBentley (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• I've reverted to the redirect as the status quo for now, and opened a requested move at Talk:Arabesque (Islamic art)#Requested move. TimBentley (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Aluminium lede

Perfect fix with your semicolon - thank you. I had earlier tried to insert a break there to bring the opening paren down to the 2nd line, but was reverted with this explanation:

Hi Clay-- I wonder what browser and/or display setting you're using that my <br> in the pronunciation looked wrong on your screen. What I see, both with Windows IE8 and with Chrome, is the top line of the lede ends with

... (American English) (

with that dangling opening parenthesis, and then the 2nd line starts with

/ˌəlˈuːmɪnəm/, ə-LOO-mi-nəm) [etc].

I was just trying to get the dangling opening parenthesis "(" to come down to the next line in front of the IPA speaker icon because it looked dumb sitting out there by itself. With both of my browsers, the break I had inserted made it appear as

... (American English)

(/ˌəlˈuːmɪnəm/, ə-LOO-mi-nəm) [etc].

Now with your revert only that one opening parenthesis goes back up to the top line again. My display is set to 1024 x 768, which I think is pretty standard. How did it - or does it now - appear on your monitor? Milkunderwood (talk) 01:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I was able to duplicate the problem by fiddling around with my settings, but I don't really see any way around leaving it as one paragraph rather than splitting it up, because invariably it will look worse than the current (minor) formatting error to a lot of users if split. Maybe if you combined some of the parenthesized information so there aren't so many of them floating around? There are 3 pairs in that first sentence alone. Clay^Clay_Clay 02:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't have thought the break would appear to create a separate paragraph as opposed to just starting a new line, as on my display, but I haven't played with my own settings. Where does the line wrap occur on yours? Anyway, I'm no expert on aluminium, and don't want to mess with the actual text there, or the pronunciations. I wonder if there's an HTML function that could force the opening paren to stay with the IPA icon instead of allowing them to split - if so, this ought to solve the problem for everyone's display. Milkunderwood (talk) 02:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The line ends at "is a" after all the parentheses are closed for me, so making a newline before the parenthesis there cuts off a good 1/4 of the line or so. I wouldn't know where to start looking for something like you're describing as a fix; who thought up inline images, anyways? I am no content editor on aluminium either, but maybe if no obvious solution pans out a post can be made to the talk page of the article or the template being used. Clay^Clay_Clay 02:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh wow, I can understand the problem, then. What I see is the hatnote is the only text that can go all the way over; then the top of the infobox starting with the periodic table illustration aligns with the first line of text, cutting it off where I showed, above - so you're getting much more text on that top line than me. It was never that big of a deal, so I'm not going to fool around with it any longer. Thanks for the info. Milkunderwood (talk) 03:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

No need for your reply unless you want. Thanks. Milkunderwood (talk) 19:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Right so

You intuiton was right when changing service trade mark. It is simple, SM is a spacing character, so does not need a character to combine with. And it was also right, again, in the AGF ;-) -DePiep (talk) 09:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

March 2012

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Mountain Lion, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Mcfar54 (talk) 12:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Further->Further2

 Done--Aervanath (talk) 03:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images

I think the Rfc is nearly finalized, but only a few editors have commented recently, not including you. Could you take a look & let us know what you think at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/11_February_2012/Muhammad-images#Finalizing_Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment.2FMuhammad_images. Thanks. Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Please explain...

...This: [23]. I did no such thing. Why would I? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Talk

Hey Cybercobra, haven't heard from you in the latest discussion. Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 00:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Binary Heaps

According to the article, "Thus, binary heaps support insertion in average constant time, O(1).". You reverted my change claiming it was vandalism, (I originally wrote it as O(1), which was changed change to O(log n)) but unless I am misunderstanding something, my edit was correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.239.75 (talk) 02:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Student activity center

Hey Cybercobra! I just wanted to propose to removal of the "SAC" abbreviation from the student activity center page. I think the page does a very good job at being inclusive of the various terms but I wanted to propose using the phrase "sometimes called "SAC" for short", because the "(SAC)" makes it sound common place. I have worked at 5 institutions of higher education and only 1 used the "SAC" abbreviation. As well, I am really involved in the Student union/center community. Let me know your thoughts! Pwojdacz (talk) 18:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Why revert my edit of Taiwan?

Hi Cybercobra, why did you revert my edits? I saw your edit summary, and though the hatnote was mostly correct, I improved it to shorten it and apply existing templates. Also replaced "People's Republic of China" with "China" since that's the common name that more people would be likely confused by, especially with the fact ROC redirects here. I also have a full paragraph added to the intro that you reverted. Please undo. Thanks! Mistakefinder (talk) 05:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC) I also added disambiguation to Geography of Taiwan since the island article got moved there, so they are all useful/correct edits! I will undo your revert in 24 hrs if I don't hear from you, unless you did it first. Thx. Mistakefinder (talk) 07:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Actually what I did doesn't repeat the ROC redirects here phrase, if you look again. So I will revert your and remove the Geog of Taiwan part, since it appears the island article is being integrated to the country one. Mistakefinder (talk) 08:48, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Hatnotes thanks

Thank you for your help and support, Cybercobra!!
Eekiv (talk) 01:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Threshold of originality: File:Posterous logo.png

Does it really pass the Threshold of originality? It's a simple geometrical shape with text. I believe it should be moved to the Commons. --Iketsi (talk) 16:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

indian_postal_history edits justification

Hello Sir, I AM VERY MUCH THANK FULL TO YOU FOR SO MINUTE SCRUTINY OF THE ARTICLE-indian_postal_history, according to your suggestions-i re-checked: spellings, grammar & added ref,citations,links after each & every edits done by me which can be verified. when i reached to page indian postal history on 08/05/2012 found that it was containing information up to 31/03/2007 since after no wikkipedian took initiative to update/edit.I took up the task & tried to update as on 31-03-2012. Still there may be some deficiency- Plz now re-check up the article & improve with your wast knowledge Sir. g.c.goyal senior postmaster,jalandharPostmasterjalandhar (talk) 12:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC) --59.90.184.209 (talk) 12:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Postmasterjalandhar (talk • contribs) 23:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC) 

indian_postal_services editing guidance

Hello Sir, I AM VERY MUCH THANKFUL TO YOU FOR GUIDING-CREATION OF SECTION-HEADS; I WAS NEW, JUST JOINED WIKKI, FACING PROBLEM IN CREATION OF MAIN & SUB HEADS UNDER THE MAIN HAED. NOW CORRECTED THE PAGE ACCORDINGLY.PLZ SEE......... G C GOYAL Postmasterjalandhar (talk) 13:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Snow Leopard (disambiguation)

Hi Cybercobra, I'm trying to understand your edit [24] that didn't have an edit summary. According to WP:MOSDAB "Linking to a primary topic", I believe the style was correct before your edit, so I have reverted it. Did I understand correctly? Widefox (talk) 17:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

AVOID USING CAPS ON

Thanks, for the guidance, going to modied my earlier mistake and will keep in my mind in future at the time of editting. G C GOYAL SENIOR POSTMASTER JALANDHAR CITY-144001 09417457387 Postmasterjalandhar (talk) 01:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC) modifed Postmasterjalandhar (talk) 02:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for working so hard on the Swift page.

alex (talk) 19:08, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Melya for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Melya 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/Melya 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 template from the top of the article. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:11, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Los Angeles Times

Regarding this diff, can you suggest another method of putting the reader's eyes on Los_Angeles_Times_in_the_21st_century? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Fahrenheit 451

Hi, Cybercobra. I noticed that in the past you have been a main contributor to the Fahrenheit 451 article. I have recently been working on that article with the aim of submitting it for WP:GA review. If you are still interested in the topic, I'd be more than please to have your help if you are still interested in that topic. I just finished a revamp of the plot summary, which I think greatly improves upon the old version. I now intend to focus on the literary analysis sections and adding better references. This will be a slow, on-going process that may take months. I edit at a leisurely pace, making slow but steady process.

I looked at your user page. We are very similar people in many ways!

I prefer the reply at same location method of using talk pages because it keeps the discussion localized, so you can reply here. Cheers, Jason Quinn (talk) 19:35, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Eiffel logo.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Eiffel logo.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. (ESkog)^(Talk) 02:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:WikiProject Citizendium Porting

Template:WikiProject Citizendium Porting has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Removing *Data storage devices and their interfaces* in Database

You have removed the section and justified by "Tangential / beyond scope." This is true when viewing a database from above, as end-users and naive administrators and application programmers do. But for a more serious design, and of course for DBMS design and development, this information is very important. The Database article deals with the wide scope of the database subject, with all important aspects and views. Please bring to discussion if you do not see this. 65.96.201.116 (talk) 02:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Mark project defunct?

Cybercobra, I see that you created WikiProject Citizendium Porting. I am inclined to mark it as defunct, as there has been no work on it in a couple of years and it seems unlikely that Citizendium will be a useful source of content for Wikipedia articles any more. Any objections? (I would prefer that you answer here instead of my talk page). RockMagnetist (talk) 17:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

(Extremely belated) I have no objection. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Newfoundland Disambiguation Links

Hi. I've just reverted the "two other uses" templates on Newfoundland and Labrador and Newfoundland (island) again. The problem with the Newfoundland Island linkage is that Newfoundland Island is actually Ukasiksalik Island on Davis Inlet, Labrador; it is an apparently unpopulated island of limited notability, and "Newfoundland Island" is apparently an alternate name for it. I'm not sure where this came from, but it has created a huge amount of confusion (I have just reverted a whole bunch of links from historical articles linking to an unpopulated Labrador island when they actually meant the island of Newfoundland - some of these were particularly obvious cases and in a few the article actually linked to both Newfoundland (island) and Ukasiksalik Island under the old name). It isn't even on Groswater Bay, but a few hundred kilometers north of it, on Davis Inlet.

The "two other uses" templates on Newfoundland and Labrador and Newfoundland (island) were put there because those are the two most common uses of the term Newfoundland; they link to each other so that anyone searching for the one but getting the other can easily shift between them. The Newfoundland disambiguation page links to both of those plus the half-dozen or so other possible meanings, and is linked from each of them using the "two other uses" template in case the searching user actually meant something else.

The existence of the Ukasiksalik Island article (renamed from the old Newfoundland Island) has already created a second disambiguation page at Newfoundland Island, which is making matters worse. I have a WP:PROD tag on Ukasiksalik Island for notability reasons and assuming that goes through I'm going to request a speedy delete of the 2nd disambiguation page as a duplicate.

I'm not trying to edit war with you; I'm just trying to make sure the distinction between the island of Newfoundland and the province it is party of remains clear. The newfoundland Island article should (in my opinion) never have been created in the first place.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 18:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. However, the province's official name changed only recently to Newfoundland and Labrador - until only a few years ago it was the Province of Newfoundland (hence the confusion). There was a fairly extensive debate bordering on 3RR about where Newfoundland should redirect to (province vs island) a few years ago - see here for details. The eventual result was to tag both pages with the "two other uses" tag linking each other and the disambiguation page, which has served fairly well until recently (although I'm not sure it was ever formally agreed upon). I think this provides a reasonable response to the problem of identity, and gives the user a shortcut to the most likely alternative they were looking for (and I have to admit, it make for easier maintenance jumping back and forth between the two articles as well). Speaking as a Canadian and a Newfoundlander, I can also tell you that in colloquial usage it is generally referred to as Newfoundland (meaning the province, not the island), with a few notable exceptions.

If you really don't like it, we can bring it to the article talk page for discussion. I think, though, that there's enough grounds here to treat this as an exception to the WP:NAMB guidelines and leave it in.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 19:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

PowerShell

Would you be willing to go into further detail why you reverted my edit here? Thanks. Fran Rogers (talk) 01:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

If you don't explain your objections, I am going to assume you're OK with me reverting back to my version. Fran Rogers (talk) 03:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

E-mail spam relayed by country in Q2-2007.png

Hey friend, you probably want to save yourself this next time. Outdated is no reason for removal. Do not waste work of others.--Kozuch (talk) 10:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

For myself to make a chart later: [25] --Cybercobra (talk) 01:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

File:482px-Abraham white.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:482px-Abraham white.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)