Speedy deletion nomination of Seidai Myōjin
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Seidai Myōjin requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Northern Escapee (talk) 08:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Nomination of Seidai Myōjin for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Seidai Myōjin 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/Seidai Myōjin until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:18, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
I’m honestly okay if it gets deleted. CycoMa (talk) 11:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Ikutsuhikone moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Ikutsuhikone, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:
" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please follow the prompts on the Articles for Creation template atop the page. ... discospinster talk 01:11, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
That’s fair. CycoMa (talk) 01:21, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Congratulations
With all the edits you made during the last week, you should qualify for your Wikipedia:Wikipedia Library card now. For some paywalled sources (mostly newspaper/magazine-type sources), access is instant. For others, there's an application process. I really think it's worth spending a day or two looking around, just so you know what's there and how to get to it. I hope you will make good use of it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:37, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Hotel Burchianti moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Hotel Burchianti, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:
" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Loksmythe (talk) 20:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Okay. CycoMa (talk) 20:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Takamimusubi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Omoikane. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Trioecy has been accepted
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider
.Thanks again, and happy editing!
Gpkp [u • t • c] 05:50, 27 October 2020 (UTC)Speedy deletion nomination of Nikobo
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Nikobo requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Northern Escapee (talk) 07:04, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hi CycoMa! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.
Happy editing! Berek (talk) 15:17, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: List of allegedly cursed objects (November 2)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:List of allegedly cursed objects and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:List of allegedly cursed objects, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
- If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
- If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
Hello, CycoMa! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Snowycats ( talk) 17:45, 2 November 2020 (UTC) |
@Snowycats: The sources aren't claiming the objects arent actually cursed. CycoMa (talk) 18:12, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: List of allegedly cursed objects (November 3)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:List of allegedly cursed objects and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:List of allegedly cursed objects, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
- If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
- If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
Your submission at Articles for creation: List of allegedly cursed objects (November 9)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:List of allegedly cursed objects and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:List of allegedly cursed objects, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
- If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
- If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Your submission at Articles for creation: List of allegedly cursed objects (November 24)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Genealogy of Norse Mythology (December 11)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Genealogy of Norse Mythology and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Genealogy of Norse Mythology, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
- If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
- If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
AIS edits
I removed them because I rearranged the article, and I put them into this section instead: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgen_insensitivity_syndrome#People_with_AIS
Your submission at Articles for creation: Yakusanoikazuchi (January 11)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Yakusanoikazuchi and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Yakusanoikazuchi, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
- If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
- If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
Important Notice
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. |
Doug Weller talk 17:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I get that Wikipedia has a neutral point of view policy and I’m trying my best to be neutral but, some of the information presented in some articles related I seen have questionable information within them and the sources within them are also a little flawed.
CycoMa (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Talk:Wolfwalkers
Hi! I saw that you responded to a WP:NOTFORUM post. I've removed this, which also resulted in your comment being removed. Long story short, this comment looked to be a case of sockpuppetry by an editor who was warned and blocked temporarily. I've taken it to SPI, so hopefully they'll be able to do something about it, even if they just decide on behavioral evidence. In the meantime I've semi'd the page so that IPs can't edit the talk page. They can still edit the article itself - I'm a bit loathe to do that since there have been beneficial IP edits.
In any case, if you wish for your comment to remain I can restore the section. If you see any further edits like IP comments, feel free to remove them as a violation of the usage of the talk page as a forum. If you want to add them to the SPI, definitely feel free. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 08:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Concern regarding Draft:Hotel Burchianti
Hello, CycoMa. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Hotel Burchianti, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:42, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Concern regarding Draft:Ikutsuhikone
Hello, CycoMa. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Ikutsuhikone, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 21:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Ikutsuhikone
Hello, CycoMa. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Ikutsuhikone".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply {{db-afc}}
, {{db-draft}}
, or {{db-g13}}
code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Hotel Burchianti
Hello, CycoMa. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Hotel Burchianti".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 21:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
April 2021
Your recent editing history at Aryan shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Toddst1 (talk) 07:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Careful
Try to avoid gendered colloquialisms like "listen man" or "dude" on Wikipedia, especially in the gender topic area. Writing comes off differently than speech and people may think you are misgendering them or accuse you of such. Please try to be careful and not do that. Crossroads -talk- 03:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Also, when it comes to talk pages, please try to indent your replies. See Help:Talk pages#Indentation. Failure to do so may be a problem later; see WP:TPG. You can see how I reply to people as an example. Note that I also combine my material into fewer but longer paragraphs. I appreciate the work you do, but I'd like to encourage this sort of skill advancement. Crossroads -talk- 05:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of Banki syndrome
The article Banki syndrome has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Delete as per WP:NOTDICDEF.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Onel5969 TT me 16:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Confirmation bias and misleading edit summaries in editing intersex
Hi there. On April 25, you posted a question on the WikiProject Medicine page, asking if a source was good. It appears you were conducting a search using the term "hermaphroditism does not exist in humans." Within the hour, you posted a quotation on the intersex page, stating "Thought about adding an opinion of a biologist with a PhD". The edit summary you added when you posted the quotation is misleading, as it was in response to something that you specifically went searching for. What is your purpose here? Trankuility (talk) 23:20, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Trankuility:I think I should explain that a little bit. I’m gonna try to be quick, so I don’t have to waste your time.
- Okay I research on biology in my free time. Just check articles I have edited like sex and gonochorism.
- I have also noticed that information from a lot of sex and gender articles, including intersex didn’t match up with biology articles.
- I have found sources from biologists that presented information that made it obvious that humans can’t be hermaphrodites. But, not gonna lie some of the language used by these individuals is hard to understand at times.
- Sure sociologists, activists, or medical professionals say hermaphroditism doesn’t occur in humans. But, I didn’t want to rely too much on them because as I stated before they don’t always agree with each other.
- So I went looking for sources from biologists that directly said it.
- I just want Wikipedia to be a place where certain information can be understood without relying on activists trying to mislead people over things most people don’t understand. CycoMa ( talk) 01:20, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
- Confirmation bias and misleading edit summaries are indications of activism. Trankuility ( talk) 01:22, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
- Trankuility, CycoMa did 'add an opinion of a biologist with a PhD', so I can't see how that was a misleading edit summary when it's exactly what he did. Whatever terminology one uses when searching for sources is not inherently confirmation bias; indeed, the accusation is itself subject to selection bias, since you don't know what other search terms he used and perhaps found nothing. And it's accurate that hermaphroditism in the full biological sense of producing both gametes does not exist in humans. Crossroads-talk- 01:44, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
- Confirmation bias and misleading edit summaries are indications of activism. Trankuility ( talk) 01:22, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
@Trankuility: I will say this. When I research on topics I do try my best to see what many sides have to say about a certain topic.
The reason I know hermaphrodites (in the biological sense) don’t exist in humans is because the math just doesn’t add up.
For starters the article on sex states that 99% of vertebrates are gonochoric. (Gonochoric at its core basically means an organism is either a male or a female.) . And that 1% of vertebrates are hermphrodites. Almost all the hermaphroditic vertebrates are fishes.
The claim of hermaphroditism being rare in vertebrates is supported by about three to four sources in that article. As a matter of fact some of them are very recent like one was written in 2020.
I cited a source in gonochorism that states mammals and birds are solely gonochoric. That was written by four Japanese biologists back in 2018.
Joan Roughgarden has stated that the term hermaphrodite applied to mammals is misleading.
She has a PhD in biology but I’m not sure she is the best source in the world. That’s why I didn’t quote her.
The biologist I cited in the intersex also has a PhD in biology and writes several books on the topic.
Sure this is all complicated and I will admit that it very complicated. There is also a lot of nuance. But hey nature is complicated.
This isn’t me doing original research or cherry-picking. It’s merely obvious what these individuals are saying.
You called me out on the fact I cited one biologist. Yet there are a lot more sources showing why it’s not technically possible. CycoMa (talk) 06:09, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Concern regarding Draft:Haniyasu-hiko and Haniyasu-hime
Hello, CycoMa. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Haniyasu-hiko and Haniyasu-hime, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 05:02, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Concern regarding Draft:Ekibiogami
Hello, CycoMa. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Ekibiogami, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:03, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Concern regarding Draft:Norse mythology family tree
Hello, CycoMa. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Norse mythology family tree, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 20:03, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Stop pushing the POV that advocating a POV on a talk page contradicts WP:OR
And maybe you missed the grammar school lesson on what "attribute" means. See my talk page for a remedial primer. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 05:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Kent Dominic: You are missing my point, sure I do think the lead has issues but, that sentence aligns with with the fist source. None of the sources state that anything about attribute. CycoMa ( talk) 05:53, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- It seems you STILL have little idea of how "attribute" merely identifies the lexical category entailed. Consider diamond in its nominal form a la " Diamond is a solid form of the element carbon." Contrast diamond in its attributive form a la Diamond Jim Brady. Before you consider any reply, look at the lead and confirm how the definition is semantically nominal (i.e. "sex is a division") and how it equates "male or female" (also nominal). Now look through the article and determine for yourself how many times it switches to an attributive use rather than a nominal use. I'm advocating for lexicological consistency, nothing else. -- Kent Dominic·(talk) 06:22, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Use of indentation on Talk pages
CycoMa, please follow the recommendation at WP:THREAD on the conventional use of indentation on Talk pages. You often indent unnecessarily after your own messages moments earlier, doing something like this:
And that proves that the sun is small. User:SomebodyElse (talk) 04:27, 32 Octember 2025 (UTC)
- The sun isn't small, it's big. CycoMa ( talk) 09:05 32 Octember 2025 (UTC)
- I meant to say, big, and yellow. CycoMa ( talk) 09:07 32 Octember 2025 (UTC)
- Plus, I forgot to mention it's far away CycoMa ( talk) 09:10 32 Octember 2025 (UTC)
- I meant to say, big, and yellow. CycoMa ( talk) 09:07 32 Octember 2025 (UTC)
- The sun isn't small, it's big. CycoMa ( talk) 09:05 32 Octember 2025 (UTC)
but you don't have to do that. You can just keep the same level of indent, at *one* level (not two) for all three of your messages, like this:
And that proves that the sun is small. User:SomebodyElse (talk) 04:27, 32 Octember 2025 (UTC)
- The sun isn't small, it's big. CycoMa ( talk) 09:05 32 Octember 2025 (UTC)
- I meant to say, big, and yellow. CycoMa ( talk) 09:07 32 Octember 2025 (UTC)
- Plus, I forgot to mention it's far away. CycoMa ( talk) 09:10 32 Octember 2025 (UTC)
Or, if you prefer, you can edit your original comment, adding in the things you forgot the first time. So at 09:10, after you realized what you forgot before, you can just change your comment and put it all together, wiping out the earlier timestamps from 09:05, and 09:07, and combining everything with just the timestamp of your last comment (this is my preferred style):
And that proves that the sun is small. User:SomebodyElse (talk) 04:27, 32 Octember 2025 (UTC)
- The sun isn't small, it's big. And yellow. And don't forget it's far away as well. CycoMa ( talk) 09:10 32 Octember 2025 (UTC)
If someone else has already replied to your 9:05 or 9:07 comment before you can add the third one, different rules apply; see WP:REDACT. Also, if you do decide to edit your own comment, just make sure that you don't change anybody else's comment; that's forbidden. Finally, your indents should be just *one level* more than the previous one, so just one colon flush left, if the comment above yours had no indentation. Details at WP:THREAD. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:00, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
No SOAPBOX
@CycoMa: In this comment of yours (diff) at Talk:Sex_and_gender_distinction, in referring to the CDC's use of the term assigned sex, you said:
Don’t you think that they are only using such language to please a certain group.
What do you hope to gain by a comment like that? Persuade other editors here to accept your opinion, rather than the opinion of respected medical sources? C'mon. Lower down, you said:
I get that on Wikipedia I’m supposed to avoid adding personal opinions but I’m not gonna pretend language like “assigned sex” is valid.
Translation: "I know about WP:NOTFORUM, but I'm going to add my general thoughts about this topic anyway, even though it goes against reliably sourced content, rather than add some ideas here about how to improve the article."
Seriously? I was involved in that conversation, so I'm not going to flag or collapse your comment, but when I happen to notice somebody making comments like that on a discussion I'm not involved in, my tendency would be to collapse it, tag it with WP:NOTFORUM, and add a gentle reminder on the user's Talk page about proper use of Talk pages, assuming it's the first time they did that. And not so gentle, if it wasn't the first time. Per WP:TALKNO
- " Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article, not vent your feelings about it." (bold in the original).
Please observe Talk page guidelines, including WP:NOSOAPBOX. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:56, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- I know Wikipedia isn’t a soapbox but language like assigned sex is just straight up a misnomer. It’s just straight up common sense. Wikipedia isn’t some place to please some groups. CycoMa ( talk) 20:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- CycoMa, I say this with respect and concern for your career as a Wikipedian: it's absolutely crucial that you understand the role of a Wikipedia editor, which simply stated, is this:
- Find reliable sources about a certain issue, and see what they say about it
- Summarize the majority position in your own words (you may include significant minority views, if any)
- Write up a citation from one or two of the best sources
- Add your summary and the citation(s), to the article.
- That's it. That's what we do. It doesn't matter how wrong the sources are if they are the majority; it doesn't matter if some term used by sources is just obviously straight up a misnomer. It doesn't matter if you were at a particular event and you know for a fact that what the sources say is wrong (like when I was at a march which a national news magazine reported incorrectly). Your role as an editor here, is to summarize what the majority of reliable sources say (right or wrong) and then add a citation for it. End of story.
- You do not get to add your opinion to the article, and you do not get to contradict what the reliable sources say because it is obviously wrong, and you know it is wrong because you were there. You don't even get to complain too much on the Talk page about the sources being wrong. If you are unable to get on board with this, then sooner or later, you will cross a line, and get yourself blocked. So, don't go there. You need to completely drop any idea from your mind that "assigned sex" is a misnomer. Whether it is a misnomer or not is completely irrelevant as far as writing articles about it. Or rather, feel free to keep in mind that it's a misnomer, if you like, as long as you are able to go merrily along, ignoring your own feelings and/or knowledge, and writing "assigned sex" all over different articles, with citations, against your own will and belief. Or, if you can't stomach that, then don't use that language if you don't believe in it, but don't use any other language, either. Just stay away from those articles entirely.
- Up to this point, I have believed you were trying to avoid POV editing in good faith, while not perhaps always succeeding in it. But now, if I am to believe what you yourself say above, then you need to be very careful, or you will find yourself in trouble. Maybe this will come as a shock to you, but Wikipedia is not about adding the WP:TRUTH with a capital 'T' to articles; it's about summarizing reliable sources and citing them, right or wrong. If you find that the majority of sources say, "2 + 2 = 5", then that's what you have to write. If you can't handle it, then go find another article to improve. Or, another encyclopedia. You need to be really clear about this, or you won't last here. Best, Mathglot ( talk) 01:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- CycoMa, I say this with respect and concern for your career as a Wikipedian: it's absolutely crucial that you understand the role of a Wikipedia editor, which simply stated, is this:
@Mathglot: I try my best to avoid adding my opinions that’s why I have been calling out editors on sex. I accused editors on that article for POV pushing and original research.
Like I criticized Kent because his statements aren’t what sources said and he didn’t even try to present sources.
I criticized Plantsurfer because he was pushing his own opinions. Not to mention he tried to push statements that went against what the sources said. On that article sex he even tried to remove statements because he didn’t like it.
Also this just a question is it okay to remove a source or a sentence because a sentence the source didn’t know anything about the topic. Like what if someone cited a book written by technician as a source for evolution? Yet the claims from that sources didn’t align with what biologists think?CycoMa (talk) 02:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Mathglot gives you good advice above. Regarding this question, if a claim is sourced to someone that lacks the relevant expertise, and there is reason to suspect that it is not representative of the view of the relevant experts, then it can be removed. See WP:EXTRAORDINARY as well as what WP:FRINGE says: "the opinion of a scholar whose expertise is in a different field should not be given undue weight." This isn't a common issue, but it does exist. Regarding terminology like "assigned sex", another possibility is to check what term other high-quality sources use. If another term is roughly at least as common, it can be used instead. I want to emphasize that it's best not to accuse editors on article talk pages of POV pushing, as it could be considered an attack. A proposed wording could be called POV, UNDUE, etc., however. Crossroads-talk- 02:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Further to your question: if you're not sure how to assess the reliability of a source, and can't tell if the person involved is out of his element or not, you can take your question to the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard, and ask there. In fact, before you ask, try typing their name into the Archive searchbox, and maybe you'll find there's already been a discussion about them, and a conclusion was reached (or not) about whether they are considered reliable or not. Not infrequently, reliability is conditional; they might be reliable for exobiology, but not for M theory. Mathglot ( talk) 04:37, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- You also might want to consider Google Scholar as a website to check scholarly assessment of a particular source. -- Kent Dominic·(talk) 05:29, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Mathglot:@Kent Dominic:@Crossroads: okay I was just wondering because I have noticed that some people cited sources on various articles that had claims that didn’t align with what experts on the topic actually think.
- I totally understand that Wikipedia isn’t a place to push your opinions but, at the same time it isn’t a place where people should just cite whatever they want because it seems accurate to them. CycoMa ( talk) 19:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- No they shouldn’t and there are policies you can quote, like WP:UNDUE, if you see someone doing that. By far, the overwhelming number of climatologists support the fact of human-caused global warming, but you can find a few outsiders that don’t. It would however be a mistake to quote one of that tiny minority in articles about the topic, because it is a WP:FRINGE view. Read up on WP:DUE WEIGHT for details on this important policy. At Wikipedia, citing a reliable source is not enough; it has to be a reliable source that is typical of the majority view on a topic. Mathglot ( talk) 22:24, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Another, kinda silly example: Somewhere there's an editor tempted to cite the astronomer who disputes that the Earth is the third planet from the Sun (as stated here the lead regarding the article on Earth) because most days, including planetary alignment, Earth is the first planet from the Sun based on simple line of sight. While such an observation has a kernel of validity, it's a WP:FRINGE statement regarding how most people determine the order of planets based on distance from the Sun. Like my mom and Einstein used to say, "Everything is relative;" like my dad and Aristotle used to say, "Agree with my premises and I can prove anything." CycoMa, if you find article with cited sources that don’t align with what certain other experts assert, and those other "experts" constitute a minority, I'd urge you to note their contrasting observations in a talk page discussion. Let other editors weigh in whether that minority view is apropos for inclusion in the article itself. -- Kent Dominic·(talk) 23:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- No they shouldn’t and there are policies you can quote, like WP:UNDUE, if you see someone doing that. By far, the overwhelming number of climatologists support the fact of human-caused global warming, but you can find a few outsiders that don’t. It would however be a mistake to quote one of that tiny minority in articles about the topic, because it is a WP:FRINGE view. Read up on WP:DUE WEIGHT for details on this important policy. At Wikipedia, citing a reliable source is not enough; it has to be a reliable source that is typical of the majority view on a topic. Mathglot ( talk) 22:24, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Civility
Just a reminder that Wikipedia's behavior guideline on WP:CIVILITY requires us to assume good faith and deal respectfully with other editors. This edit of yours at Talk:Sex#Sex: Other odds & ends was out of bounds. Please cool down; sometimes taking a break and coming back and writing your message a little later, when you've calmed down a bit, can help. Mathglot (talk) 02:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- I know I overreacted but, seriously I’m having some many editors on sex repeating themselves over and over again, doing original research, POV pushing, and annoying me. CycoMa ( talk) 03:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
May 2021
Your recent editing history at Jessica Yaniv shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. CatCafe (talk) 07:44, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Hasshaku-sama moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Hasshaku-sama, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:
" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Concern regarding Draft:Genealogy of Norse Mythology
Hello, CycoMa. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Genealogy of Norse Mythology, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 08:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks
Hi CycoMa, thank you for bringing that discussion to a consensus close. At various points, it seems we were talking past one another, and I apologize for my part in that. Don't feel like you need to respond, but I would happy to talk through what happened or discuss any related topics if you are interested. Thanks again! Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:44, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Firefangledfeathers sorry if I came off as a little aggressive back there, let’s just say articles relating to sex, gender, and sexology. Are well known for some POV pushing and people accidentally spreading misinformation (but individuals who aren’t experts).
- I probably wasn’t extremely clearly what at first to be honest and what was my mistake. CycoMa ( talk) 04:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- I appreciate you saying that. I hear you on the POV pushing; I was coming to this from the LGBT side of things and there are ... similar issues. Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 04:55, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Hasshaku-sama (May 15)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Hasshaku-sama and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Hasshaku-sama, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
- If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
- If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.