User talk:Cynulliad

Welcome!

Hello, Cynulliad, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Conifer (talk) 18:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A pie for you!

Good, you're on! Allygggggg (talk) 18:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove my Sicario entry about Juarez? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:CEC2:AD10:528:803A:C879:521E (talk) 01:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall doing that, it must have been a mistake? Go ahead and put it back, as I have no recollection of doing so. -Cynulliad

Disambiguation link notification for November 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Earth, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Survival. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:20, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited South Burlington High School, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CVU. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vermont State Colleges, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tropical Storm Irene. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Hi Cynulliad, I just wanted to thank you for your good-faith editing and willingness to engage at Vermont and Talk:Vermont. You will probably not be the last editor to be puzzled by the apparent contradiction in listing of Bernie Sanders party status! I, too, experienced the same puzzlement until I investigated further. At this stage there will be many more, who experience the same. I'm wondering whether it's best to give into incorrect consistency or to find a way that explains the apparent contradiction, so that others won't go through the same cycle. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 21:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Remember that when adding medical content please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations. WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a build in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vermont, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Montpelier station. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 2016

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You are nearing violating the 3RR. This is simply so you are aware of it and begin using the talk page. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Linking and unlinking

Hi! I reverted your edits on Yellowstone because the links you added were to very common words, like Earth. Try to be judicious in adding links, and read through the policy about linking too many words. I also noticed that you've been removing red links in several articles. This also needs to be done with care; red links are often desirable: the policy about red links is here. Cheers! — Gorthian (talk) 02:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gorthian cautioned you about overlinking on February 11th, yet you continued to add links to major geographical places such as the United States here after that warning. Please read WP:OVERLINK and stop what is beginning to appear as disruptive editing. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After advised twice, you overlinked United States again, here. I reverted your edit. Please read WP:Disruption. IHTS (talk) 22:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Use en dash

I refer to your edit in the article Eugenics. According to Manual of style: "A pure year–year range is written (as is any range) using an en dash not a hyphen or slash" and so in this case replacing a dash with a hyphen was an error. ––Nikolas Ojala (talk) 03:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 2016

Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would second that request. You are making a large number of edits in Vermont right now -- but few if any of the changes include an Edit Summary. e.g. you should briefly explain why you are deleting so much Demographic information from cities across Vermont. From my experience changes made without an Edit Summary "attract attention" [from other editors] and are more likely to be reverted. Thanks FFM784 (talk) 13:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and put it all back if you think it ought to be there. Sorry for not providing edit summaries I will from now on I guess it's been laziness. Thanks for the tips I owe you a million. -Cynulliad (contribs) 23:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous editors have cautioned you about your sloppy editing and it's had little impact. Your lack of respect for other editors appears disruptive. Please stop. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't sarcasm in that last statement by the way. And I should double check more often before clicking "Save page". I forgot to provide an edit summary last time so FFM784 I now owe you a billion (I mean at least USD$20 if you haven't already got it....plus possible interest....). This is a "major edit" in a "major country". I'm trying to be lighthearted Magnolia677, no intention to offend anyone. -Cynulliad 23:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no plans to revert the changes that you made to cities and town in Vermont at this stage but I am curious why you appear to be systematically removing large chunks of demographic information from so many Vermont articles.FFM784 (talk)

Do you want me to put it all back? I can revert the changes. If you let me know in this convo I'll change them back. Although I did make a lot of them, I don't mind. Do you want to call me and talk about this? If this is the old friend that I think it is (and you know who I am?), you can call me at my old number if you still have it, otherwise message me on FB (and we can catch up if you want as well). If you think the Wikimedia Foundation should close/suspend my account for doing that I get that too, but I did merely just remove information, I didn't get in another edit war haha. Let me know. -Cynulliad

I don't think you need to undo the changes that you made unless you hear from other editors. I also don't for a second think that anyone would consider suspending your account for the recent changes in Vermont. I'm an editor living in Western Mass who likes to keep an articles about Vermont too and when I saw your recent edits (without comment) an alarm bell went off. Keep in mind that sometimes "merely just remov[ing] information" can be seen by some as vandalism unless there is a decent reason for removing the text. Some people like to remove information on Wikipedia that they don't agree with and there are others who delete text because they don't want people to know certain things. You've been making an incredible number of very helpful edits on Wikipedia. You should charge forward and have fun on the way. FFM784 (talk) 14:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the topic of Edit Summaries. I had a quick look at your recent summaries and they look good to me. A few points that may be helpful - It seems to be generally accepted that don't need to provide an edit summary when you edit your own User Page. Also, you can find a list of Edit summary abbreviations on this link WP:ESL. I use them from time to time. This article might also be helpful. WP:EDS. FFM784 (talk) 14:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Evidence

added a link pointing to Assertion

M.I.A. (rapper)

added a link pointing to West London

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bernie Sanders

Hi Cynulliad, Thank you for your diligent efforts at the Vermont article. One note, Bernie Sanders doesn't normally use "Bernard," even though that's his formal name, just as jimmy Carter didn't typically use "James" as his name in conducting official business. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 18:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Existence

Hi Cynulliad! I reverted your links on Existence because the links you added point to a non-philosophical disambiguation page and a philosophically incorrect page. Objective and subjective in philosophy are technical terms that are different from objective and subjective in science or in ordinary language. Please see object (philosophy) for an explanation. ~~ BlueMist (talk) 13:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Medical referencing

Hello and thank you for your contribution and help in improving the medical content on Wikipedia. Wikipedia needs more editors who want to improve content and so your efforts are welcome and appreciated. Some of your recent edits may have been reverted because of issues with the referencing of the information. As in all of Wikipedia, secondary sources are best and this is especially important for content about health. The community has developed guidelines and you can see them here: high-quality reliable sources. Editors working on health content typically use review articles, textbooks and content from national or international organizations like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO). More help can be found at WP:MEDHOW. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. Also, if you are interested in editing specific medical or health articles and need help finding references, please leave a note on my talk page as I would be happy to help you with this. Best regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 21:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Social work has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Alphabetical order does not mean to add content and a source. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 09:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabetical order

Hello Cynulliad, I know you mean well, and I appreciate that you correctly identify your edits in the summary. But please do not reorder the text of articles purely by alphabetical criteria. In general, there is a logical order in which things are listed. E.g. the article Diagnosis says that it "is typically used to determine the causes of symptoms, mitigations, and solutions." Obviously, symptoms come before mitigations, and solutions are the end goal. I will therefore revert those edits. — Sebastian 09:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I realize you did a lot of these edits. This was quite a lot of work for you, and I salute your dedication. I still think these should be reverted, but it's a lot of work for me, too. So I just asked at Wikipedia:Help_desk#Selective_reversions whether there is a way to make this easier. — Sebastian 10:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To explain why I think it is best to revert all your alphabetic sortings: By alphabetically sorting, you destroy information for the reader – the information of the order of the items. Examples:

"Symptoms, mitigations and solutions" gives the reader an information about which comes first.
Other sequences may have been ordered by other criteria, such as at Voting, where you ordered "discussions, debates, or election campaigns". That was a sequence going from the least organized to most organized. Such sequences may not be immediately obvious, but they still serve a purpose: They are there to make an article better readable by enabling the flow of thought. (This is recommended in Style, Ten Lessons in Clarity and Grace by Joseph M. Williams, section Cohesion: A Sense of Flow, pp. 78ff.)
In other cases, you also broke the logical cohesion. In Social control, your reordering created a wrong double "within"

Naturally, there are also situations in which an alphabetical order may happen to be the best order. E.g. "begin and end" is usually better than "end and begin". That takes careful examination for each individual case. So, if we end up finding a way to revert all your alphabetic sortings, it is possible that some of them actually were improvements. If you explain the specific case in the edit summary, you can of course revert such a reversal. — Sebastian 17:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC) (amended 17:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC).)[reply]

I see from the post below that you're busy editing, and I'm disappointed that you didn't reply to my messages here. Since this is a big issue that needs to be resolved, I'm reposting my help desk question at WP:AN. — Sebastian 17:30, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

+1, it is incredibly annoying how this user has gone through articles wholesale and just utterly mindlessly reordered words alphabetically. -- Blorg (talk) 06:46, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blorg, this user has since been socking; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Motivação/Archive. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at Albert Einstein shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. - DVdm (talk) 11:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Hi there. I've noticed a few of your recent edit summaries are overly literal. The purpose of edit summaries is to allow other editors to quickly gauge the content of an edit while going through their watchlist (or a page's history). Summaries like "Added a word & changed a link" and "Added punctuation in infobox" sort of defeat the purpose of actually having edit summaries, so it would be better to actually describe the edit you're making (as you did here – "Changed "English" to "British"). Thanks, IgnorantArmies (talk) 16:11, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It might also be worth reading Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom before making mass changes to articles, as a lot of editors feel strongly about whether a particular person is described as British or English/Scottish/Welsh. IgnorantArmies (talk) 16:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I definitely agree with that. I reverted all of the nationality edits you made today. You need to understand that the name of the country is the United Kingdom, not Britain. Also it's not a good idea to change nationalities of people from the UK to or from the various home countries (i.e., English to British, etc) without a good reason. There are a lot of people on here who change these to their own personal preference, but it shouldn't be done unless there's a good argument for it. This is Paul (talk) 21:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Bipolar disorder

added a link pointing to Mood

Face

added a link pointing to Identity

Mental disorder

added a link pointing to Ability

Schizophrenia

added a link pointing to Environment

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

National varieties of English

In a recent edit to the page Karl Marx, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to India, use Indian English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. RolandR (talk) 13:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changes of "New York City" to "city of New York"

Hi, I have undone your edits that changed "New York City" to "city of New York" to the article about Manhattan. There does not seem to be a consensus to change from one phrasing to the other. Either one is correct, but you made some phrasing changes that were awkward, like Manhattan has the third-largest population of the city of New York's five boroughs, which is not better than Manhattan has the third-largest population of the New York City's five boroughs. I recommend that if you want to make changes like that, you should discuss this at Talk:New York City. Thanks. epicgenius (talk) 15:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 7 March

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Boston page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:27, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabetical ordering for the lead

Cynulliad, I'm not sure why you think that alphabetical ordering for the lead is the best way to go, but, as seen by Herostratus reverting you here, and me reverting you here and here, that is not the standard way we do leads. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:55, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it's not the way the English language works, or any other language I know. A great many factors come into play when a writer chooses word order, but you will hardly ever see alphabetical ordering among them. There are much more significant considerations such as weight, sense and flow. Word order is sometimes subtle; we often take it for granted and don't notice it until we see errors such as this, this and this. NebY (talk) 19:49, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we typically put the more important ones first. I fixed a few of your switches. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:16, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I didn't realize this was a "thing". Not meaning to pile on, but by all means take a look at the talk page thread. IMO it's quite an interesting subject... enough to stump Tolkien, who was a keen philologist. Contra Doc James, I don't think the rule is "more important first", but is less logical than that. But there is a rule; AFAIK no one has figured out a logic to it... We know that we say "Look at that big old green car" and no other order ("old green big" or "green big old" or whatever), and from this a rule can be deduced that size comes before age and age before color in most any instance -- try it yourself -- and other adjectives also fit into some rule of order, and if you don't use that order you sound a bit like someone who's not a native English speaker. AFAIK it's not "better" or "more logical" to put size before color, or that the age of an object is necessarily more important than its color, and so forth... it just developed over the centuries I guess. (Naturally there are exceptions in certain constrained instances -- "We have several big cars, which one do you want?" "I want the green big car" -- but I'm talking about general circumstances.) I imagine if one is not a native English speaker this could be difficult. Herostratus (talk) 20:21, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While my hope is that going through articles and alphabetizing lists without consensus does not become common place. I view it as similar as switching from one local spelling to another. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:32, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right. Alphabetization has more limited use than is sometimes thought. It can be good for long lists where the reader will be searching for a particular entry(s) (although in some cases other schemes may work better). We had someone a while back who was alphabetizing all the categories in pages. That was not good because readers are not generally looking through the category list at the bottom of the article, looking for some particular category; rather than wanting to know "is this article in category X?" they are more likely to be enlightened by seeing "what categories is this article in?" which is an entirely different question... so we go with a logical order (sorting the categories by like-goes-with-like) rather than alphabetical... Herostratus (talk) 20:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Demographic info

Hi. I noticed you removed demographic information in Montpelier, Vermont and Rutland (city), Vermont (there may be others, I haven't looked) without giving a reason. Racial makeup is standard info in articles. (see WP:USCITIES#Demographics) Thanks. APK whisper in my ear 08:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Improving chart at Legality of cannabis by U.S. jurisdiction

This article is the most-viewed page for cannabis issues in the US (~1,500 views/day). I think we can streamline it to make it less clunky and more intuitive for readers, especially now that we have state-specific articles for all US states. Your feedback is invited: Talk:Legality_of_cannabis_by_U.S._jurisdiction#Changes_to_chart.3F. Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Cynulliad. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]